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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/04/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 have been amended to overcome the 112 (b) rejections.
The double patenting rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/04/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in section (a) Neither reference Chakam nor reference Schnuerer teaches or suggests "wherein the roof panel of the vehicle has a recess corresponding to an edge contour of the antenna cap" because Chakam's bottom part (9) does not have a recess, and Schnuerer's vehicle antenna is inserted into a mounting opening of body part 40. Examiner argues that 9 has a recess because the surface is receding downward.
Applicant also argues (b) Reference Chakam does not teach or suggest "the antenna cap and the electronics module are inserted into the roof panel from opposite sides" because Chakam's antenna cap (5) and electronics module (10, 11) are secured to body part (40) of a vehicle from the same side.
Examiner argues that the antenna cap and electronics module are secured to the body part of the vehicle via positioning means 12 and 14 and are therefore secured from opposite sides (left and right sides).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. —An element in a claim for a combination may be
expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure,
material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding
structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a
specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such
claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
(also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the
specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 5 2181, subsection l, claim limitations that meet the following
three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for
"means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for")
or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when
the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption
that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted
under35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim
limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely
perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do
not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Chakam et al (U.S. Publication number US 20120274519 hereby referred as Chakam) in
view of Schnuerer (U.S. Publication number 20100231467 hereby referred as Schnuerer) in
view of Totani (U.S. Publication number US 20140071003 A1 hereby referred as Totani).
Regarding claim 1, Chakam discloses:
An antenna assembly (Fig. 1-4), comprising: a roof panel of a vehicle (see para. 0002);
and a roof antenna for the vehicle (shark fin antenna 1),
the roof antenna comprising: an electronics module (inner antenna housing 10 and
protective cover 11) (Fig. 2C); and an antenna cap (outer cover 5) (Fig. 2A and 2B) configured
to protect the electronics module (10 and 11), wherein the electronics module (10 and 11)
comprises a positioning means (12 and 14) (Fig. 2B) configured to position the antenna cap (5)
on the roof panel (see para. 0044), wherein the electronics module (10 and 11) comprises one or more electronic circuits configured to operate the roof antenna (see Fig. 3 and 4)
wherein the roof panel of the vehicle has a recess (recess of 9) (Fig. 2D) corresponding to
an edge contour of the antenna cap (5), and wherein the antenna cap (5) and the electronics module (10, 11) are inserted into the roof panel from opposite sides,
Chakam does not disclose “wherein the antenna cap comprises a plurality of positioning
means protruding from the antenna cap, and wherein the plurality of positioning means are
configured to pass through a plurality of passages of the roof panel in an installed state of the
roof antenna, and a base of the roof panel has the plurality of passages corresponding to the
plurality of positioning means and a passage corresponding to an outer contour of the electronics module; wherein the antenna cap is configured to have the roof panel glued along the edge contour of the antenna cap, and the electronics module being detachably fastened to the roof panel.”
However, Schnuerer teaches wherein the antenna cap (50) comprises a plurality of
positioning means (pegs at the bottom of 50) (Fig. 2) protruding from the antenna cap (50), and
wherein the plurality of positioning means (pegs at the bottom of 50) (Fig. 2) are configured to
pass through a plurality of passages of the roof panel (40) in an installed state of the roof antenna (holes on 40 correspond to the pegs at the bottom of 50), and a base of the roof panel (40) has the plurality of passages corresponding to the plurality of positioning means (pegs at the bottom of 50 and 11a and 11b) and a passage corresponding to an outer contour (the large opening in the middle of 40) of the electronics module (10 and 30),…and the electronics module (10) being detachably fastened (by 18) (Fig. 1) to the roof panel (40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of positioning means configured to pass
through a plurality of passages of the roof panel in an installed state of the roof antenna, and a
base of the roof panel having a plurality of passages corresponding to the plurality of positioning means and a passage corresponding to an outer contour of the electronics module; and the electronics module being detachably fastened to the roof panel as taught by Schnuerer with the antenna assembly of Chakam in order to achieve simple production and easy mounting and to fasten it to the vehicle (Para. 0004, Schnuerer).
Chakam in view of Schnuerer does not disclose “the antenna cap is configured to have
the roof panel glued along the edge contour of the antenna cap”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Totani teaches the antenna cap (20) (Fig. 2) is
configured to have the roof panel (100) glued along the edge contour (23, see para. 0028 and
para. 0009) of the antenna cap (20).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the antenna cap configured to have the roof panel glued
along the edge contour of the antenna cap as taught by Totani with the antenna assembly of
Chakam so a replacement antenna can be prevented from being broken or bent even in the case where the vehicle is washed by a car washing machine or the vehicle enters a multistory parking lot. (Para. 0008, Totani).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Chakam does not disclose “wherein the positioning means of the antenna cap is arranged at a distance from the electronics module in the installed state of the roof antenna.”
However, Schnuerer teaches the positioning means of the antenna cap (pegs at the bottom
of 50) (Fig. 2) is arranged at a distance from the electronics module (10 and 30) in the installed
state of the roof antenna (the antenna of Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the positioning means of the antenna cap arranged at a
distance from the electronics module in the installed state of the roof antenna as taught by
Schnuerer with the antenna assembly of Chakam in order to make room between the antenna cap and the electronics module.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Chakam does not disclose “wherein the plurality of positioning means of the antenna cap protrudes from the antenna cap, and wherein each of the plurality of positioning means of the antenna cap is configured to pass through a respective passage of the plurality of passages in the roof panel in the installed state of the roof antenna.”
However, Schnuerer teaches wherein the positioning means of the antenna cap (pegs at
the bottom of 50) (Fig. 2) protrudes from the antenna cap (protrude from 50), and wherein each of the plurality of positioning means of the antenna cap (pegs at the bottom of 50) (Fig. 2) is configured to pass through a respective passage of the plurality of passages in the roof panel (40) in the installed state of the roof antenna (holes on 40 correspond to the pegs at the bottom of 50).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of positioning means of the antenna cap protrudes from the antenna cap, and wherein each of the plurality of positioning means of the antenna cap is configured to pass through a respective passage of the plurality of passages in the roof panel in the installed state of the roof antenna as taught by Schnuerer with the antenna assembly of Chakam in order to achieve simple production and easy mounting and to fasten it to the vehicle (Para. 0004, Schnuerer).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Chakam does not disclose “wherein the antenna cap is configured to have contact with a base of the recess of the roof panel by being glued along the edge contour of the antenna cap using a double-sided adhesive tape.”
However, in the same field of endeavor, Totani suggests the teaching the antenna cap
(20) (Fig. 2) is configured to have contact with a base of the recess of the roof panel by being
glued (although roof panel is not recessed, see para. 0007) along the edge contour of the antenna cap (20) using a double-sided adhesive tape (23, see para. 0028).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the antenna cap configured to have contact with a base of the recess of the roof panel by being glued along the edge contour of the antenna cap using a double-sided adhesive tape as suggested by the teachings of Totani with the antenna assembly of Chakam so a replacement antenna can be prevented from being broken or bent even in the case where the vehicle is washed by a car washing machine or the vehicle enters a multistory parking lot. (Para. 0008, Totani).
Regarding claim 6, , the modified Chakam does not disclose “wherein the electronics module is detachably fastened to the roof panel by pivoting the electronics module into the installed state.”
However, Schnuerer teaches the electronics module is detachably fastened (by 18) (Fig.
1) to the roof panel (40) by pivoting (see para. 0040) the electronics module (10 and 30) into the installed state.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the electronics module detachably fastened to the roof
panel by pivoting the electronics module into the installed state as taught by Schnuerer with the antenna assembly of Chakram in order to achieve simple production and easy mounting and to fasten it to the vehicle (Para. 0004, Schnuerer).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Chakam et al (U.S. Publication number US 20120274519 hereby referred as Chakam) in
view of Schnuerer (U.S. Publication number 20100231467 hereby referred as Schnuerer) in
view of Totani (U.S. Publication number US 20140071003 A1 hereby referred as Totani) in
view of Kobayashi (U.S. Publication number US 20170104264 A1 hereby referred as
Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Chakam does not disclose “wherein the electronics module is configured to be waterproof.”
However, Kobayashi in Fig. 1-3 teaches an antenna assembly wherein the electronics
module (inner cover 104) is configured to be waterproof (see para. 0061-0062).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have an antenna assembly wherein the electronics module is
configured to be waterproof as taught by Kobayashi with the antenna assembly of modified
Chakam to protect the antenna member and its components from water (para. 0061-0062,
Kobayashi).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Chakam does not disclose “wherein the electronics module is fixated using a screw-type latching.”
However, Kobayashi teaches that the electronics module (inner cover 104) is fixated
using a screw-type latching (116)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have the electronics module fixated using a screw-type latching as taught by Kobayashi with the antenna assembly of the modified Chakam in order to fasten the electronics module to the roof panel (para. 0036, Kobayashi).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed on the PTOL 892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith..
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
DAMEON E. LEVI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights