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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 7/25/25, 10/29/25, and 12/11/25 are considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/29/25.
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. Therefore, the limitation of “wherein the first end intersects a horizonal cover line of a metal frame of the window tangentially” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s); as presented, it does not appear that the first end (308) intersects the horizontal cover line (302), rather that it nears the horizontal cover line, and is connected at a tangential point by the feed line (312). 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 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 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, The limitation of “wherein the first end intersects a horizontal cover line of a metal frame of the window tangentially” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact in what matter the first end is both intersectional and tangent to the horizontal cover line, as the disclosure does not describe in sufficient detail for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended structure, and the presented drawings do not appear to disclose the first end intersecting with the horizontal cover line, nor being tangentially disposed at the horizontal cover line, instead appearing to disclose that the feed line (312) connects the horizontal feed line to a point of the first end, the first end being separated from the horizontal cover line (see instant Fig. 3A). The claimed invention being inconsistent with the disclosure, the metes and bounds of the claim are found to be indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Further, the limitation of “suitable for use in a window of a vehicle” is indefinite in that it is not made clear whether the “window of a vehicle” is intended to be a component of the claimed invention or merely an application of said invention, as while it is established within the preamble, in the body of the claim reference is made to “the window”, which if it is intended that the window be a claimed component of the invention, the window should be established first within the body of the claim, and if it is not intended that the window be a claimed component of the invention, the limitation of “the window” then lacks sufficient antecedent basis. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner, the limitation of the window being addressed in the rejections below.
Claims 2-4 and 7, being dependent upon claim 1, are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 8, The limitation of “wherein the first end intersects a horizontal cover line of a metal frame of the window tangentially” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact in what matter the first end is both intersectional and tangent to the horizontal cover line, as the disclosure does not describe in sufficient detail for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended structure, and the presented drawings do not appear to disclose the first end intersecting with the horizontal cover line, nor being tangentially disposed at the horizontal cover line, instead appearing to disclose that the feed line (312) connects the horizontal feed line to a point of the first end, the first end being separated from the horizontal cover line (see instant Fig. 3A). The claimed invention being inconsistent with the disclosure, the metes and bounds of the claim are found to be indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 9-11 and 14, being dependent upon claim 8, are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, The limitation of “wherein the first end intersects a horizontal cover line of a metal frame of the window tangentially” is indefinite in that it is not made clear, concise, and exact in what matter the first end is both intersectional and tangent to the horizontal cover line, as the disclosure does not describe in sufficient detail for one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the intended structure, and the presented drawings do not appear to disclose the first end intersecting with the horizontal cover line, nor being tangentially disposed at the horizontal cover line, instead appearing to disclose that the feed line (312) connects the horizontal feed line to a point of the first end, the first end being separated from the horizontal cover line (see instant Fig. 3A). The claimed invention being inconsistent with the disclosure, the metes and bounds of the claim are found to be indefinite in scope. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 16-18, being dependent upon claim 15, are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0169989).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 4), as best understood by the examiner, a window of a vehicle, comprising: a glass surface (¶20 lines 5-7); a set of defroster wires in the glass surface (see Fig. 1), wherein a top wire of the set of defroster wires is separated from a top edge of the metal frame by an antenna region (see Fig. 1, disposition of 34; see also ¶26 lines 11-13); an antenna disposed in the antenna region (10), the antenna having a first end (46) and a second end opposite the first end (74), the antenna disposed on a glass surface of the window (16), wherein the first end intersects a horizontal cover line of the metal frame tangentially (see intersection with section 26 of frame 18); a feed line (30) that connects to the first end of the antenna at the horizontal cover line (see Fig. 4); and a ground line that electrically couples the second end of the antenna to the metal frame (see connection of antenna 10 to element 18, at 74).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the window of claim 8, wherein the window is a back window of the vehicle (see Fig. 1).
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0169989).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 4), as best understood by the examiner, an antenna assembly suitable for use in a window of a vehicle, comprising: an antenna (10) having a first end (46) and a second end opposite the first end (74), the antenna disposed on a glass surface of the window (16), wherein the first end intersects a horizontal cover line of a metal frame of the window tangentially (see intersection with section 26 of frame 18); a feed line (30) that connects to the first end of the antenna at the horizontal cover line (see Fig. 4); and a ground line that electrically couples the second end of the antenna to the metal frame (see connection of antenna 10 to element 18, at 74).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the feed line connects the antenna to a communication device; however, Li does teach (¶22) that the antenna structure radiates in frequency bands utilized for cellular/mobile telephone communications, necessitating that it is connected to a communication device, as would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna assembly of Li such that the feed line connects the antenna to a communication device, employing the teachings of the disclosure of Li and basics of antenna technology known to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of rendering the antenna structure operable radiate in cellular frequency bands (¶22).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the window is a back window including a set of defroster wires (see Fig. 1), and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame (see Fig. 1, frame 14 of vehicle in tandem with section 28).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0169989) in view of Dai (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0040662).
Regarding claim 15, Li et al. teaches (Figs. 1, 4), as best understood by the examiner, a vehicle, comprising: a window of the vehicle having a glass surface (16); a metal frame around a perimeter of the window (frame 14 of vehicle in tandem with section 28), the metal frame defining at least a horizontal cover line and a vehicle cover line (such designations may be arbitrarily defined); a set of defroster wires in the glass surface (see Fig. 1), wherein a top wire of the set of defroster wires is separated from a top edge of the metal frame by an antenna region (see Fig. 1, disposition of 34; see also ¶26 lines 11-13); an antenna disposed in the antenna region (10), the antenna having a first end (46) and a second end opposite the first end (74), the antenna disposed on a glass surface of the window (16), wherein the first end intersects a horizontal cover line of the metal frame tangentially (see intersection with section 26 of frame 18); a feed line (30) that connects to the first end of the antenna at the horizontal cover line (see Fig. 4); and a ground line that electrically couples the second end of the antenna to the metal frame (see connection of antenna 10 to element 18, at 74).
Li does not teach wherein the metal frame is separated from the glass surface by a separation gap.
Dai teaches (Figs. 1-2) a window of a vehicle having a glass surface (10) and a metal frame around a perimeter of the window (30), wherein the metal frame is separated from the glass surface by a separation gap (see Fig. 2, ¶20 lines 13-15; element bridging the gap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Li by forming the metal frame to be separated from the glass surface by a separation gap, employing the teachings of Dai.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling annular sealing between the two elements (Dai, ¶20 lines 12-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the metal frame is on top of a part of the glass surface and is separated from the glass surface by a separation gap and the ground line is in the separation gap, further comprising a conductive adhesive layer in the separation gap that electrically couples the ground line to the metal frame”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is included for its dependency upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the ground line extends horizontally from the second end of the antenna to a vertical edge of the metal frame”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the metal frame is on top of a part of the glass surface and is separated from the glass surface by a separation gap and the ground line is in the separation gap, further comprising a conductive adhesive layer in the separation gap that electrically couples the ground line to the metal frame”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is included for its dependency upon claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the ground line extends horizontally from the second end of the antenna to a vertical edge of the metal frame”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the metal frame is on top of a part of the glass surface and is separated from the glass surface by a separation gap and the ground line is in the separation gap, further comprising a conductive adhesive layer in the separation gap that electrically couples the ground line to the metal frame”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is included for its dependency upon claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, the limitation of “wherein the ground line extends horizontally from the second end of the antenna to a vertical edge of the metal frame”, and the modification of the art of record to incorporate this feature would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0167423), Talty et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0324141), Winkelmann et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0033433), Yamamoto et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0045425), Mamuro et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0311123), Reul et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0060921), and Paulus et al. (US Patent No. 5,898,407) teach various embodiments of metal frame-surrounded vehicle window antennas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 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, 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845