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
This Office Action is in response to the amended application filed on December 31, 2025. The Remarks of December 31, 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Drawings are considered and the replacement sheets to Figs. 15-17 are accepted. The original objections to the Drawings are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Specification are considered and the respective amendments are accepted. There are no further objections to the Specification.
The Remarks regarding the objections to the Claims are considered and the respective amendments to claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are accepted. The original objections to these claims are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 112 rejections of the Claims are considered. The amendments to the respective claims are accepted and the original 112 rejections are withdrawn.
The Remarks regarding the 103 rejections of the Claims are considered. The amendments to claim 1, which include the allowable subject matter of the original claim 17, overcome the 103 rejection of claim 1 and the rejection is withdrawn. The 103 rejections of the respective dependent claims are subsequently withdrawn, as well.
The applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate new grounds of rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following feature(s) are not shown:
Claim 1 (line 35): “the first feeder has a second axis”;
Claim 4: “the first length is greater than the second length” (lines 6-7) and “the first length is smaller than the second length” (lines 9-10). According to claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse” and, as shown in the Drawings (e.g. Figs. 15-17), the first length is and the second length are equal;
Claim 5: “the first length of the first radiation portion in each radiator decreases progressively” (lines 3-4) and “the second length of the third radiation portion in each radiator decreases progressively” (lines 6-7). According to claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse”. None of the figures in the Drawings shows the first length or the second length decreasing progressively for radiators which are an ellipse;
Claim 6 (line 3): “the third length is smaller than a minimum length of the first length and the second length”. According to claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse”. Figs. 16 and 17 in the Drawings show that the third length, which is the maximum length of the second radiation portion of the at least one first radiator, is greater than a minimum length of the first length and the second length. There are no figures which show the third length is smaller than a minimum length of the first length and the second length for radiators which are an ellipse;
Claim 7 (lines 1-2): “the third length of the second radiation portion in each radiator decreases progressively”. According to claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse”. There are no figures in the Drawings which show the third length of the second radiation portion in each radiator decreases progressively for radiators which are an ellipse;
Claim 10 (line 2): “a second feeder connected to the second radiation portion in each radiator”. Claim 1 (line 2) recites “a first feeder connected to the plurality of radiators”. There are no figures that show two feeders – a first feeder and a second feeder – connected to the same radiator, as implied by the recitation of a first feeder in claim 1 and a second feeder in this claim. The Drawings show a single feeder connected to a respective radiator, wherein the location of the feeder may change accordingly;
Claim 11 (line 7): “the fourth length is greater than the fifth length”. According to claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse”. There are no figures in the Drawings which show the fourth length is greater than the fifth length for radiators which are an ellipse;
Claim 13 (lines 3-4): “the fourth length of the first radiation portion in each first radiator increases progressively”. According to claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse”. There are no figures in the Drawings which show the fourth length of the first radiation portion in each first radiator increases progressively for radiators which are an ellipse;
Claim 14 (line 2): “a third feeder connected to the third radiation portion in the radiator”. Claim 1 (line 2) recites “a first feeder connected to the plurality of radiators”. There are no figures that show two feeders – a first feeder and a third feeder – connected to the same radiator, as implied by the recitation of a first feeder in claim 1 and a third feeder in this claim. The Drawings show a single feeder connected to a respective radiator, wherein the location of the feeder may change accordingly.
Regarding objections (b)-(e) and (g)-(h), the examiner notes that per claim 1 (line 34) “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse”. Because of claim dependencies, all other claims also claim radiators that are in the shape of an ellipse. All of the figures that show differences or changes in lengths of one type or another depict rectangularly shaped radiators and, therefore, do not show the limitations in question. None of the figures in the drawings show radiators that are in the shape of an ellipse, where the respective differences or changes in lengths are shown.
Therefore, the above feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 19): “the radiation center” should be amended to “a radiation center”;
Claim 1 (lines 19-20): “the central axis” should be amended to “a central axis”;
Claim 1 (line 20): “the axis of the first feeder” should be amended to “an axis of the first feeder”;
Claim 1 (lines 20 and 22): “the axis of the radiator” should be amended to “the central axis of the radiator”;
Claim 1 (lines 21 and 22): “the feeder” should be amended to “the first feeder”;
Claim 1 (line 34): “the plurality of radiators are of an ellipse” should be amended to “the plurality of radiators are in a shape of an ellipse”;
Claim 1 (line 49): “there are a plurality of radiators” should be amended to “there is a plurality of radiators”;
Claim 8 (lines 1-2): “the first radiation portion is a first rectangle” should be amended to “the first radiation portion is in a first rectangle”;
Claim 9 (line 1): “on” should be amended to “in”;
Claim 11 (line 1): “The antenna according to claim 2” should be amended to “The antenna according to claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-14, and 18 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.
Claim 1 (line 2) recites: “a first feeder connected to the plurality of radiators”. It is not clear how the first feeder is connected to the plurality of radiators and whether “a first feeder” refers to a single feeder or to a plurality of feeders. According to the Specification (e.g., Figs. 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, and 19) the antenna of the current invention comprises a plurality of feeders, wherein each feeder of the plurality of feeders is connected to a corresponding radiator of the plurality of radiators. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification, this limitation is interpreted as: a plurality of feeders, wherein each feeder of the plurality of feeders is connected to a corresponding radiator of the plurality of radiators.
Claim 1 (line 19) recites: “the radiation center of a radiator”. The scope of this limitation is indefinite because it is not clear whether “a radiator” refers to a radiator of the plurality of radiators or a new radiator. Further, as recited, this limitation, while descriptive, serves no purpose for distinguishing between different radiators – the at least one first radiator and the at least one second radiator, for example.
Claim 1 (lines 25-26) recites: “the sub-area has a second area and first areas located on opposite sides of the second area”. The scope of this limitation is indefinite because it is not clear whether the second area and the first areas recited here are the same or different from the first area and the second area defined earlier in the claim.
Claim 1 (line 35) recites: “the first feeder has a second axis”. It is not clear whether the second axis recited here is the same or different from the axis of the first feeder recited earlier.
Claim 1 (line 49) recites: “there are a plurality of radiators in each of the first areas”. It is not clear whether the plurality of radiators recited here is a part of the plurality of radiators recited earlier in the claim (lines 1-2) or a different plurality of radiators. Further, it is not clear which first areas the claim refers to.
Claims 1, 4 and 18 recite: “in a case that the flexible substrate comprises the first bendable portion, …; and in a case that the flexible substrate comprises the second bendable portion”. The scope of this limitation is indefinite because it implies that the flexible substrate may or may not comprise the first bendable portion or the second bendable portion. However, as recited in claim 1 (lines 24-27), “the flexible substrate comprises at least one bendable portion, …, the at least one bendable portion comprises a first bendable portion and a second bendable portion” – i.e. the flexible substrate comprises both the first bendable portion and the second bendable portion. Thus, it is not possible to distinguish between the two cases.
Claims 3-14 and 18 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 5 (lines 1-2) recites: “each of the first areas has a plurality of radiators”. It is not clear whether the plurality of radiators recited here are a part of the plurality of radiators recited earlier in the claim (see lines 1-2) or a different plurality of radiators. Further, it is not clear which first areas the claim refers to because a first area and first areas are defined independently in two instances in claim 1.
Claim 5 recites: “the first length of the first radiation portion in each radiator” (lines 3-4) and “the second length of the third radiation portion in each radiator” (lines 6-7). As recited here, the first length and the second length are indefinite because claim 4 refers only to the first radiator in defining a first length and a second length as “a maximum length of the first radiation portion of the at least one first radiator” and “a maximum length of the third radiation portion of the at least one first radiator”, respectively.
Claim 5 recites: “the second area in a same first area” (lines 4-5) and “the same first area, … away from the second area” (lines 6-8). The scope of the claim is indefinite because a first area/first areas and a second area are defined independently in two instances in claim 1.
Claim 7 (line 1) recites: “the same first area”. It is not clear which first area the claim refers to because a first area and first areas are defined independently in two instances in claim 1.
Claim 9 (line 1) recites: “a same first area”. It is not clear which first area the claim refers to because a first area and first areas are defined independently in two instances in claim 1. Also, “a first area” implies that this might be a new first area different from the first areas previously defined in claim 1.
Claim 11 (line 6) recites: “in a case that the flexible substrate comprises the first bendable portion”. The scope of this limitation is indefinite because it implies that the flexible substrate may or may not comprise the first bendable portion or the second bendable portion. However, as recited in claim 1 (lines 24-27), “the flexible substrate comprises at least one bendable portion, …, the at least one bendable portion comprises a first bendable portion and a second bendable portion” – i.e. the flexible substrate comprises both the first bendable portion and the second bendable portion. Thus, it is not possible to ascertain when the case recited here is occurring.
Claim 12 (line 1) recites “the radiator”. The scope of the claim is indefinite because claim 11 refers to “the at least one first radiator” and “the at least one second radiator”. Therefore, it is not clear which radiator the claim refers to.
Claim 13 recites: “each of the first areas” (line 1) and “a same first area” (line 3). It is not clear which first area(s) the claim refers to because a first area and first areas are defined independently in two instances in claim 1. Also, “a first area” implies that this might be a new first area different from the first areas previously defined in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-14 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Yoon et al. (US 20230402755 A1) and Lou et al. (US 20230231320 A1) teach some elements of the claimed invention including: a flexible substrate and a plurality of radiators wherein: the flexible substrate has a first surface, and the plurality of radiators are distributed and spaced apart along a first direction at a side of the first surface, the flexible substrate comprises a first area and a second area, the first area is located on at least one side of the second area in the first direction, at least one first radiator among the plurality of radiators is located in the first area, and at least one second radiator among the plurality of radiators is located in the second area.
However, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant. Specifically, none of the cited Prior Art references teaches or suggests the limitation “wherein in the first direction, a first distance is present between the extension line of the first axis and the second axis, there are a plurality of radiators in each of the first areas, and in the same first area, the first distances corresponding to the at least one first radiator increase progressively along a direction away from the second area” (claim 1, last paragraph).
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 MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights