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 filed February 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that the claims as examined in the office action of 9/17/2025 were amended in the claims submitted on 1/20/2026, and that the claims in the supplemental response dated 2/03/2026 reflect these amendments.
Regarding claim 1 the applicant argues that the art of Chen does not teach the amended claim 1 such that “on the first surface, the plurality of monopole antennas is disposed within a radius of 45% of the maximum length from a center of the first axis”. The examiner agrees with the applicant regarding Chen failing to teach and/or disclose the newly amended features of claim 1. However, the combined prior art of Shigenobu and Cheng teaches the previously presented features of claim 1.
Moreover, the combined prior art of Shigenobu, Cheng, Yamamoto, Nishikido and/or Tatomirescu teaches: the previously presented features of claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10-12; and the currently amended features of claim 9.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant's argument. The examiner contends that the previously presented/currently amended features in the 35 USC 103 rejections below are disclosed by the combined art of Shigenobu, Cheng, Yamamoto, Nishikido and/or Tatomirescu.
The examiner would welcome a request for interview to discuss strategies for amending the claims with the goal of determining amendments that would overcome the prior art of record while ensuring that the invention is clearly recited in a manner that is not overly limiting. As best understood by the examiner, the applicant has argued but not claimed features/details in the instant application that would overcome the prior art of record as applied.
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) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005286801 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by MIKAMI SHIGENOBU et al. (hereinafter SHIGENOBU) in view of US 20130154890 by CHENG-GENG JAN et al. (hereinafter CHENG).
Regarding claim 1, SHIGENOBU teaches: (Previously Presented) A vehicular antenna device (vehicle-mounted antenna device 21 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) comprising:
a cover (cover 4 ¶ 0023, fig. 3);
a plurality of monopole antennas (monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3); and
a base (ground plate 3 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) including a first surface (upper surface 3a ¶ 0012-0013, fig. 3),
PNG
media_image1.png
576
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SHIGENOBU – Figure 3
PNG
media_image2.png
601
867
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SHIGENOBU – Figure 3.1
the first surface (upper surface 3a ¶ 0012-0013, fig. 3) having a first axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the first surface (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [First Axis]),
wherein the base (ground plate 3 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) has a maximum length in the longitudinal direction (The ground plate 3 has a maximum length in the longitudinal direction, see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [First Axis]),
wherein, in a plan view from a normal direction of the first surface (see fig. 3), the plurality of monopole antennas (monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) is on a second axis intersecting the first axis (see fig. 3), and
wherein on the first surface (see fig. 3 [3a]), the plurality of monopole antennas (monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) is disposed within a radius of 45% of the maximum length (The upper surface 3a has a maximum length in the longitudinal direction, see fig. 3 [First Axis]) from a center of the first axis (see fig. 3).
SHIGENOBU further teaches the modified folded monopole antenna 2 has one end 2a of its element formed wide and screwed to the upper surface 3a of the ground plate 3 with screws 14 so as to be in contact with the ground plate 3 (¶ 0012).
The vehicle-mounted antenna device 21 is configured such that the modified folded monopole antennas 22, 23 are mounted on the ground plate 3, and the modified folded monopole antennas 22, 23 and the ground plate 3 are covered from above by the cover 4. The modified folded monopole antenna 22 is configured in the same shape as the modified folded monopole antenna 2, while the modified folded monopole antenna 23 is configured in a shape in which the left and right longitudinal sides of the modified folded monopole antenna 2 are swapped (switched) (¶ 0023, fig. 3).
SHIGENOBU does not explicitly teach a plurality of monopole accommodated in an accommodation space formed by the cover.
However, CHENG teaches an antenna device 100, a cover 120, the antenna device 100 may be located on a car roof 200, two monopole antennas 150, and the cover 120 is assembled with the bottom 110, and an accommodating space 130 is formed between the cover 120 and the bottom 110 to accommodate the two monopole antennas 150 (¶ 0040, fig. 1-2).
The gap D may be in a range from 3 cm to 10 cm in accordance with design requirements (¶ 0041, fig. 2).
Other types of antennas 180, 190 may also be mounted on the printed circuit board 140 (¶ 0053, fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of CHENG to include the accommodating space with the antenna device of the art of SHIGENOBU with the benefit of safeguarding the antenna's internal components.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of SHIGENOBU and CHENG to obtain the invention:
a plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) accommodated in an accommodation space (CHENG: accommodating space 130 ¶ 0040, fig. 1) formed by the cover (CHENG: cover 120; an accommodating space 130 is formed between the cover 120 and the bottom 110 to accommodate the two monopole antennas 150 ¶ 0040, fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) is arranged in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to Claim 1, wherein, in the plan view (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3), the first axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [First Axis]) passes through a center of the first surface (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [3a]), and wherein, in the plan view (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3), the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) is located substantially symmetrically with respect to the first axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [22, 23 and First Axis]).
Regarding claim 4, (Cancelled).
Regarding claim 5, (Cancelled).
Regarding claim 6, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to Claim 1, wherein the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) is disposed in a direction substantially perpendicular to the first surface (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [22, 23 and 3a]).
Regarding claim 7, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1,
wherein a position where each of the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) contacts (SHIGENOBU: screwed to the upper surface 3a of the ground plate 3 with screws 14 so as to be in contact with the ground plate 3 ¶ 0012, fig. 3.1 [14]) the first surface (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [22, 23 and 3a]) is on the second axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [Second Axis]), and
wherein the second axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [Second Axis]) is substantially perpendicular to the first axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [First Axis]).
Regarding claim 8, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the second axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [Second Axis]) is in a lateral direction of the first surface (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [3a]).
Regarding claim 9, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Currently Amended) the vehicular antenna device according to claim 8, wherein the maximum length of the base (SHIGENOBU: ground plate 3 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) in the longitudinal direction (The ground plate 3 has a maximum length in the longitudinal direction, see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [First Axis]) is longer than a width of the base (SHIGENOBU: ground plate 3 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) in the lateral direction (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIGENOBU in view of CHENG and in further view of US 20030189521 by ATSUSHI YAMAMOTO et al. (hereinafter YAMAMOTO).
Regarding claim 10, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3).
SHIGENOBU and CHENG do not explicitly individually teach, or make obvious in combination, wherein each of the plurality of monopole antennas is supplied with power at substantially a same amplitude and a same phase.
However, YAMAMOTO teaches an antenna, wherein the antenna includes antenna elements 14 and 15, power supply points 16 and 17 signal lines 18 and 19, a power supply control circuit 20, and an external connecting terminal 21 (¶ 0086, fig. 1A-1B).
The power supply control circuit 20c. the radiation directivity when the antenna elements 14 and 15 are supplied with signals equal in amplitude and phase to each other (¶ 0104, fig. 2C and 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of YAMAMOTO to include the power supply control circuit with the antenna device of the combined art of SHIGENOBU and CHENG with the benefit of providing a bi-directional directivity in the X axis direction (YAMAMOTO, ¶ 0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of SHIGENOBU, CHENG and YAMAMOTO to obtain the invention:
YAMAMOTO teaches wherein each of the plurality of monopole antennas (antenna elements 14 and 15 ¶ 0086, fig. 1A-1B) is supplied with power (power supply control circuit 20c ¶ 0104) at substantially a same amplitude and a same phase (the radiation directivity when the antenna elements 14 and 15 are supplied with signals equal in amplitude and phase to each other ¶ 0104, fig. 5A).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIGENOBU in view of CHENG and in further view of US 20100111143 by TOMOAKI NISHIKIDO et al. (hereinafter NISHIKIDO).
Regarding claim 11, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to claim 6, the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3), monopole antenna (SHIGENOBU: modified folded monopole antenna 2 ¶ 0013).
SHIGENOBU and CHENG do not explicitly individually teach, or make obvious in combination, wherein each of the plurality of monopole antennas is a 1/2 wavelength monopole antenna.
However, NISHIKIDO teaches the antenna element 1, the antenna element 2, and the antenna element 3 has a length of 70 mm (¶ 0078, fig. 1).
The antennas disposed on the upper portion of the housing as three half-wavelength monopole antennas. However, the antennas are not limited to these (¶ 0092).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of NISHIKIDO to include the length with the monopole antennas of the combined art of SHIGENOBU and CHENG with the benefit of offering improved low-angle radiation and high efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of SHIGENOBU, CHENG and NISHIKIDO to obtain the invention:
wherein each of the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) is a 1/2 wavelength (NISHIKIDO: half-wavelength ¶ 0092) monopole antenna (SHIGENOBU: modified folded monopole antenna 2 ¶ 0023).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIGENOBU in view of CHENG and in further view of US 20160285160 by ALEXANDRU TATOMIRESCU et al. (hereinafter TATOMIRESCU).
Regarding claim 12, SHIGENOBU and CHENG make obvious (Previously Presented) the vehicular antenna device according to claim 1, a first monopole antenna (SHIGENOBU: monopole antenna 22 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) and a second monopole antenna (SHIGENOBU: monopole antenna 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) of the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) along the second axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [Second Axis]).
SHIGENOBU and CHENG do not explicitly individually teach, or make obvious in combination, wherein a distance between a first monopole antenna and a second monopole antenna of the plurality of monopole antennas along the second axis is substantially 1/2 times a wavelength of a frequency used in the plurality of monopole antennas.
However, TATOMIRESCU teaches to two monopoles 125, 135 on a large ground plane spaced at half wavelength. S11 (140) and S21 (145) of Case 1 may be used as reference S parameters for the two monopoles spaced at half wavelength (¶ 0027, fig. 1A-1B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of TATOMIRESCU to include the distance with the monopole antennas of the combined art of SHIGENOBU and CHENG with the benefit of facilitating better radiation control and controlling mutual coupling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of SHIGENOBU, CHENG and TATOMIRESCU to obtain the invention:
wherein a distance (TATOMIRESCU: spaced ¶ 0027, fig. 1A) between a first monopole antenna (SHIGENOBU: monopole antenna 22 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) and a second monopole antenna (SHIGENOBU: monopole antenna 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) of the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3) along the second axis (see SHIGENOBU – Figure 3 [Second Axis]) is substantially 1/2 times a wavelength (TATOMIRESCU: half wavelength ¶ 0027, fig. 1A) of a frequency (see TATOMIRESCU fig. 1B) used in the plurality of monopole antennas (SHIGENOBU: monopole antennas 22, 23 ¶ 0023, fig. 3).
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 JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, ET.
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, REGIS J. BETSCH can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2844
/REGIS J BETSCH/ SPE, Art Unit 2844