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 .
Priority
The pending application 18/578,730, filed on 12 JAN 2024, is a national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/JP2022/027923, filed on 15 JUL 2022, and claims priority from provisional application 63/223,366, filed on 19 JUL 2021.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 13 APR 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, and 11have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled. Claims 1-11 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Applicant’s amendments to the claim 11 has overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) raised in the previous office action dated 19 DEC 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (US 2010/0302113 A1, cited in IDS dated 12 JAN 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2004/0135731 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
An antenna device (Sugimoto et al. antenna device 1, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6) disposed at a mobile body (Sugimoto et al. vehicle, ¶ [0005]) disposed at a mobile body that includes a structural portion (Sugimoto et al. the frame of the vehicle ¶ [0005]), the antenna device comprising:
an antenna element (Sugimoto et al. antenna element 3, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6) disposed apart from the structural portion(Sugimoto et al. “the in-vehicle antenna device is arranged on a windshield of the vehicle” - ¶ [0005]; where the windshield is separate from the frame of the vehicle, therefore considered to be disposed apart from the structural portion), the antenna element supporting radio waves in a predetermined frequency band (Sugimoto et al. “Each of the first and second element lengths is a half of the wavelength of the usage frequency of the electromagnetic wave.” - ¶ [0022]); and
a reflective element configured to reflect the radio waves (Sugimoto et al. the combination of conductive surfaces 4-6, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6), the reflective element being located between the structural portion and the antenna element in a radiation direction of the radio waves (Sugimoto et al. the conductive surfaces 4-6 are disposed between the frame of the vehicle and the antenna element 3 in a direction toward the front of the vehicle, Fig. 1),
wherein
the reflective element includes a first reflective portion (Sugimoto et al. conductive surface 4, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6), a second reflective portion (Sugimoto et al. conductive surface 5, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6), and a third reflective portion (Sugimoto et al. conductive surface 6, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6),
Komatsu et al. discloses:
the second reflective portion is located apart from and facing the first reflecting portion (Komatsu et al. the left vertical portion of the conductive inner surface 32 is located apart from and facing the right vertical portion of the conductive inner surface 32, Fig. 2; “The reflecting member 12 includes, for example, a reflecting member main body 31 comprising a substantially box-like non-conductive member having an opening 12a and a conductive inner surface 32 comprising a conductive member provided so as to cover completely over an inner-surface of the reflecting member main body 31.” - ¶ [0040]), and
the third reflective portion connects the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion (Komatsu et al. the horizontal portion of the conductive inner surface 32 extends between and connects the left vertical portion of the conductive inner surface 32 and the right vertical portion of the conductive inner surface 32, Fig. 2; “The reflecting member 12 includes, for example, a reflecting member main body 31 comprising a substantially box-like non-conductive member having an opening 12a and a conductive inner surface 32 comprising a conductive member provided so as to cover completely over an inner-surface of the reflecting member main body 31.” - ¶ [0040]).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Komatsu et al. into the invention of Sugimoto et al. to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Both Sugimoto et al. and Komatsu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose antenna devices that are mounted on a vehicle, and the antenna devices include reflecting portions. Sugimoto et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Sugimoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose the second reflective portion is located apart from and facing the first reflecting portion, and the third reflective portion connects the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion. This feature is disclosed by Komatsu et al. where the conductive inner surface 32 of the reflecting member 12 has three surfaces that are connected to form a c-shaped cross-section (Komatsu et al. Fig. 2; ¶ [0040]). The combination of Sugimoto et al. and Komatsu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the transmitting and receiving properties of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0007]) and improve the directional characteristics of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein a first direction is a direction in which the antenna element is separated from the structural portion (Sugimoto et al. the direction normal to the roof 11, Fig. 1), and the antenna element is located between the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion (Sugimoto et al. antenna element 3 is disposed between conductive surfaces 4-6, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6)
Although Sugimoto et al. does not explicitly disclose that the antenna element located between the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion in a direction perpendicular to the first direction, Sugimoto et al. does disclose the antenna element 3 disposed between conductive surfaces 4-6, where the conductive surfaces function as reflection plates such that the electromagnetic wave is restricted to a particular direction of the vehicle (Sugimoto et al. ¶ [0023]-[0026]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing to modify the invention of Sugimoto et al. such that a conductive surface is provided on side surface 2d such that the antenna element is located between first and second reflective portions in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, in order to limit the electromagnetic waves to improve the gain of the antenna device in a desired direction.
Komatsu et al. also discloses:
wherein a first direction is a direction in which the antenna element is separated from the structural portion (Komatsu et al. the antenna element is separated from the roof of the vehicle 1 in the z-direction, Fig. 1), and the antenna element is located between the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Komatsu et al. the antenna element is located between the left vertical portion of the conductive inner surface 32 and the right vertical portion of the conductive inner surface 32 in the y-direction perpendicular to the z-direction, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Komatsu et al. into the invention of Sugimoto et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 2. Both Sugimoto et al. and Komatsu et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose antenna devices that are mounted on a vehicle, and the antenna devices include reflecting portions. Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Sugimoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose the antenna element is located between the first reflective portion and the second reflective portion in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction. This feature is disclosed by Komatsu et al. where the antenna element is separated from the roof of the vehicle in the z-direction, and the antenna element is located between the side surfaces of the inner conductive surface in the y-directions (Komatsu et al. Figs. 1-2). The combination of Sugimoto et al. and Komatsu et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to restrict the direction of the electromagnetic wave to and from the antenna in a particular direction of the vehicle (Sugimoto et al. ¶ [0023]-[0026]), improve the transmitting and receiving properties of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0007]) and improve the directional characteristics of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0047]).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 2, wherein at least one of a first distance in the second direction between the first reflective portion and the antenna element or a second distance in the second direction between the second reflective portion and the antenna element is one third or less of a wavelength of the radio waves (Sugimoto et al. “It is preferable that the height d is almost equal to a product of one-fourth of a wavelength of the used frequency of the electromagnetic wave and a shortening ratio of a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave passing through the dielectric element 2.” - ¶ [0018]; “The shortening ratio is a range between 0.7 and 0.8…” - ¶ [0022]; Therefore, the distance between the reflective element and the antenna element ranges from 0.175 λ to 0.2 λ, Figs. 1-3B, 7).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the first distance or the second distance is one tenth or more and one fifth or less of the wavelength of the radio waves (Sugimoto et al. “It is preferable that the height d is almost equal to a product of one-fourth of a wavelength of the used frequency of the electromagnetic wave and a shortening ratio of a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave passing through the dielectric element 2.” - ¶ [0018]; “The shortening ratio is a range between 0.7 and 0.8…” - ¶ [0022]; Therefore, the distance between the reflective element and the antenna element ranges from 0.175 λ to 0.2 λ, Figs. 1-3B, 7).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 2, wherein the third reflective portion is located between the structural portion and the antenna element in the first direction (Sugimoto et al. conductive surface 6 is located between the roof 11, the pillar 12 and the antenna element 3, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 5, wherein a third distance in the first direction between the third reflective portion and the antenna element is one tenth or more of a wavelength of the radio waves (Sugimoto et al. “It is preferable that the height d is almost equal to a product of one-fourth of a wavelength of the used frequency of the electromagnetic wave and a shortening ratio of a wavelength of the electromagnetic wave passing through the dielectric element 2.” - ¶ [0018]; “The shortening ratio is a range between 0.7 and 0.8…” - ¶ [0022]; Therefore, the distance between the reflective element and the antenna element ranges from 0.175 λ to 0.2 λ, Figs. 1-3B, 7).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the reflective element is disposed at a location to suppress scattering of the radio waves by the structural portion (Sugimoto et al. the combination of conductive surfaces 4-6 direct the radio waves in a particular direction thereby suppressing the radio waves in another direction, Figs. 1-3B, 4-6).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (US 2010/0302113 A1, cited in IDS dated 12 JAN 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2004/0135731 A1, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumpfbeck et al. (US 5,111,214 A, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 1,
Kumpfbeck et al. discloses:
the radio waves are linearly polarized waves (Kumpfbeck et al. linearly polarized antenna 10, Fig. 1A; Col. 2, lines 12-15), and
the first reflective portion (Kumpfbeck et al. sidewall 18 of reflector 14, Fig. 1), the second reflective portion (Kumpfbeck et al. sidewall 18 of reflector 14, Fig. 1), and the third reflective portion (Kumpfbeck et al. backwall 16 of reflector 14, Fig. 1) include a plurality of linear portions (Kumpfbeck et al. “The backwall 16 may be formed of a solid sheet of conductive, reflecting material or as a grid, the latter construction being illustrated in FIG. 1. Also, the sidewalls 18 may be formed of a solid sheet of conducting, reflecting material or as a set of slats or vanes, as shown in FIG. 1.” – Col. 2, lines 5-10) configured to reflect the linearly polarized waves.
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Kumpfbeck et al. into the invention of Sugimoto et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 8. Sugimoto et al., Komatsu et al. and Kumpfbeck et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose antenna devices that restrict or suppress radiation in a particular direction. Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Sugimoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose the first reflective portion, the second reflective portion, and the third reflective portion include a plurality of linear portions configured to reflect the linearly polarized waves. This feature is disclosed by Kumpfbeck et al. where “The backwall 16 may be formed of a solid sheet of conductive, reflecting material or as a grid, the latter construction being illustrated in FIG. 1. Also, the sidewalls 18 may be formed of a solid sheet of conducting, reflecting material or as a set of slats or vanes, as shown in FIG. 1.” (Kumpfbeck et al. Col. 2, lines 5-10). The combination of Sugimoto et al., Komatsu et al. and Kumpfbeck et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the transmitting and receiving properties of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0007]), improve the directional characteristics of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0047]) and “reflect or block a maximum portion of the E-plane backlobe and sidelobe radiation.” (Kumpfbeck et al. Col. 2, lines 21-23).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. (US 2010/0302113 A1, cited in IDS dated 12 JAN 2024, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Komatsu et al. (US 2004/0135731 A1, newly cited by the examiner) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogasawara (US 2021/0072374 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a compensator (Sugimoto et al. front end circuit 56, Fig. 7) including
the reflective element is located between the compensator and the antenna element in the radiation direction of the radio waves (Sugimoto et al. conductive surface 54 is located between the front end circuit 56 and the antenna element 53 in the radiation direction, Fig. 7).
Ogasawara discloses:
a compensator including
a first amplifier (Ogasawara PA 12, Figs. 3A-8B) configured to amplify the radio waves that are transmitted,
a second amplifier (Ogasawara LNA 13, Figs. 3A-8B)configured to amplify the radio waves that are received, and
a switch (Ogasawara switch 14, Figs. 3A-8B) configured to switch between a path having the first amplifier and a path having the second amplifier.
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ogasawara into the invention of Sugimoto et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 9. Sugimoto et al., Komatsu et al. and Ogasawara are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose antenna devices for vehicles. Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Sugimoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose a compensator including a first amplifier, a second amplifier and a switch. This feature is disclosed by Ogasawara where the distance measuring device comprising a PA 12, LNA 13, and switch 14 (Ogasawara Figs. 3A-8B). The combination of Sugimoto et al., Komatsu et al. and Ogasawara would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the transmitting and receiving properties of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0007]), improve the directional characteristics of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0047]) and obtain accurate distance measurements (Ogasawara ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 10 (Previously Presented), Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Sugimoto et al. has been struck-through]
The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein
the mobile body is a vehicle (Sugimoto et al. vehicle, ¶ [0005])
the antenna element is disposed at an end portion of the device (Sugimoto et al. antenna element 53 is disposed at an end portion of the device, Fig. 7)
Ogasawara discloses:
the mobile body is a vehicle (Ogasawara ¶ [0019]) including a device (Ogasawara distance measuring device 1, Figs. 3A-8B) to check surroundings (Ogasawara checks surrounding for smart entry key, ¶ [0020]), and
the antenna element is disposed at an end portion of the device to check surroundings (Ogasawara antenna 16 is disposed at an end portion of the distance measuring device 1, Figs. 3A-8B).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ogasawara into the invention of Sugimoto et al. as modified above to yield the invention of claim 10. Sugimoto et al., Komatsu et al. and Ogasawara are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose antenna devices for vehicles. Sugimoto et al. as modified above discloses the invention of claim 1. However, Sugimoto et al. fails to explicitly disclose the device to check surroundings, and the antenna element is disposed at an end of the device to check surroundings. This feature is disclosed by Ogasawara where antenna 16 is disposed at an end portion of the distance measuring device 1 (Ogasawara Figs. 3A-8B). The combination of Sugimoto et al., Komatsu et al. and Ogasawara would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the transmitting and receiving properties of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0007]), improve the directional characteristics of the antenna (Komatsu et al. ¶ [0047]) and obtain accurate distance measurements while checking surrounding for a smart entry key (Ogasawara, ¶ [0020]).
Conclusion
Applicant's 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 NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
18 JUN 2016
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights