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), submitted on November 13th, 2025 and December 11th, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. (JP 2013026800 A), herein referred to as Hayashi and further in view of Gasser (US 6111552), herein referred to as Gasser.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses an antenna assembly (figure 3) for a window of a vehicle (previously attached translation), comprising: an antenna (300) disposed on a glass surface (12) of the window, the antenna having a first end (left of figure 3) and a second end (right) opposite the first end, the antenna disposed in a visible region (see fig. 7, the antenna is placed over the glass portion) of the window; a feed point (16) at the first end of the antenna; and a ground plane (17a/b) disposed on the glass surface and connected to the antenna at the first end (see figs. 3-7), wherein a metal frame (56) of the window is on top of at least part of the ground plane (17a/b) and the ground plane is electrically coupled (ground member 31a) to the metal frame (56, see fig. 7).
Hayashi does not specifically disclose wherein the antenna and the ground plane are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point.
However, Gasser discloses a similar antenna (fig. 5) wherein the antenna (106/108) and the ground plane (130) are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point (110a/b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna assembly of Hayashi wherein the antenna and the ground plane are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point, as taught by Gasser, to provide symmetrical radiation/reception.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the ground plane (17a/b) includes a first recess and a second recess along an edge of the ground plane (see annotated fig. below), the first recess and the second recess defining a connector section (5) of the ground plane.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the first recess and the second recess are symmetrically arranged about the antenna axis.
However, as discussed in claim 1, Gasser discloses an antenna assembly wherein the antenna and ground plane are symmetrical. Furthermore, Hayashi does disclose (page 7, lines 3-14, of previously attached translation) that the shape of the antenna and the ground can be changed as needed to reach necessary parameters in the antenna operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified assembly of Hayashi wherein the first recess and the second recess are symmetrically arranged about the antenna axis, as suggested by the teachings of Gasser and Hayashi, in order to retain symmetry in the ground plane while providing symmetrical radiation/reception.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the first end of the antenna includes a curved convex contour.
However, Gasser discloses in fig. 1, a similar antenna system wherein a first end includes a curved convex contour (see fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified assembly of Hayashi wherein the first end of the antenna includes a curved convex contour, as taught by Gasser), to obtain preferential radiation.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the ground plane (17a/b) is disposed within a separation gap (See figs. 4/5) between the glass surface (12) and the metal frame (56), further comprising a conductive adhesive layer in the separation gap that electrically couples the ground plane to the metal frame (attached translation, page 5, lines 7-10, adhesive or adhesive tape is used to connect ground plane to the grounding member specifically to ground to the vehicle body).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the antenna is a monopole antenna.
However, Gasser does disclose a monopole antenna design (fig. 5, reflecting ground plane).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified assembly of Hayashi wherein the antenna is a monopole antenna, in order to allow for smaller form factors.
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi discloses a window of a vehicle, comprising: a glass surface (12); a metal frame (56) along a perimeter of the glass surface; an antenna assembly (see fig. 3) disposed on the glass surface, the antenna assembly including: an antenna (300) having a first end (left of fig. 3) and a second end (right of fig. 3) opposite the first end, the antenna disposed in a visible region (See fig. 7) of the window; a feed point (16) at the first end of the antenna; and a ground plane (17a/b) connected to the antenna at the first end, wherein the metal frame (56) is on top (see fig. 7) of at least part of the ground plane (17a/b) and the ground plane is electrically coupled to the metal frame (ground member 31a).
Hayashi does not specifically disclose wherein the antenna and the ground plane are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point.
However, Gasser discloses a similar antenna (fig. 5) wherein the antenna (106/108) and the ground plane (130) are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point (110a/b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna assembly of Hayashi wherein the antenna and the ground plane are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point, as taught by Gasser, to provide symmetrical radiation/reception.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 8.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the ground plane (17a/b) includes a first recess and a second recess along an edge of the ground plane (see annotated fig. below), the first recess and the second recess defining a connector section (5) of the ground plane.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the first recess and the second recess are symmetrically arranged about the antenna axis.
However, as discussed in claim 8, Gasser discloses an antenna assembly wherein the antenna and ground plane are symmetrical. Furthermore, Hayashi does disclose (page 7, lines 3-14, of previously attached translation) that the shape of the antenna and the ground can be changed as needed to reach necessary parameters in the antenna operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified assembly of Hayashi wherein the first recess and the second recess are symmetrically arranged about the antenna axis, as suggested by the teachings of Gasser and Hayashi, in order to retain symmetry in the ground plane while providing symmetrical radiation/reception.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 9.
Hayashi also discloses wherein a portion of the connector section (5) is in the visible region (see fig. 7) of the window.
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 8.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the ground plane (17a/b) is disposed within a separation gap (See figs. 4/5) between the glass surface (12) and the metal frame (56), further comprising a conductive adhesive layer in the separation gap that electrically couples the ground plane to the metal frame (attached translation, page 5, lines 7-10, adhesive or adhesive tape is used to connect ground plane to the grounding member specifically to ground to the vehicle body).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi and Gasser all limitations of base claim 8.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the antenna is a dipole antenna (attached translation, page 7, lines 23-30).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, Gasser, and further in view of Lindenmeier et al. (US 5589839), herein referred to as Lindenmeier.
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the antenna includes a mesh of electrical wires surrounded by an edge, the edge being made of wires that are thicker than the electrical wires of the mesh.
However, Lindenmeier discloses an antenna for a vehicle window wherein the antenna includes a mesh of electrical wires surrounded by an edge, the edge being made of wires that are thicker than the electrical wires of the mesh (see fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified assembly of Hayashi wherein the antenna includes a mesh of electrical wires surrounded by an edge, the edge being made of wires that are thicker than the electrical wires of the mesh, as taught by Lindenmeier, to form low surface resistance (col. 9 lines 22-30).
Claims 7, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, Gasser, and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 20180151939 A1), herein referred to as Hashimoto.
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the window is a back window including a set of defroster wires and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame.
However, Hashimoto discloses a similar vehicle antenna wherein the window is a back window (para. 0065) including a set of defroster wires (42) and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame (para. 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna assembly of Hayashi wherein the window is a back window including a set of defroster wires and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame, as taught by Hashimoto, to avoid interference from the frame and the defrost wires (para. 0011).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 8.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the window is a back window including a set of defroster wires and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame.
However, Hashimoto discloses a similar vehicle antenna wherein the window is a back window (para. 0065) including a set of defroster wires (42) and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame (para. 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the window of Hayashi wherein the window is a back window including a set of defroster wires and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame, as taught by Hashimoto, to avoid interference from the frame and the defrost wires (para. 0011).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi discloses a vehicle (attached translation), comprising: a window having a glass surface (12); a metal frame (56) along a perimeter of the glass surface (12); an antenna assembly (fig 3) disposed on the glass surface (12), the antenna assembly including: an antenna (300) disposed within the antenna region, the antenna having a first end (left, fig. 3) and a second end (right fig. 3) opposite the first end, the antenna disposed in a visible region of the window (see fig. 7); a feed point (16) at the first end of the antenna; and a ground plane (17a/b) connected to the antenna at the first end, wherein the metal frame (56) is on top (see fig. 7) of at least part of the ground plane (17a/b) and the ground plane is electrically coupled (ground member 31a) to the metal frame (56).
Hayashi does not teach a set of defroster wires; wherein a top edge of the metal frame and the set of defroster wires define an antenna region and wherein the antenna and the ground plane are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point.
However, Hashimoto discloses a similar vehicle antenna wherein the window is a back window (para. 0065) including a set of defroster wires (42) and the antenna is disposed within an antenna region between the set of defroster wires and a top edge of the metal frame (para. 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the vehicle of Hayashi set of defroster wires; wherein a top edge of the metal frame and the set of defroster wires define an antenna region, as taught by Hashimoto, to avoid interference from the frame and the defrost wires (para. 0011).
Further, Gasser discloses a similar antenna (fig. 5) wherein the antenna (106/108) and the ground plane (130) are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point (110a/b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified vehicle of Hayashi wherein the antenna and the ground plane are symmetric about an antenna axis that passes through the feed point, as taught by Gasser, to provide symmetrical radiation/reception.
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi, Gasser, and Hashimoto render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the ground plane (17a/b) includes a first recess and a second recess along an edge of the ground plane (see annotated fig. below), the first recess and the second recess defining a connector section (5) of the ground plane.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the first recess and the second recess are symmetrically arranged about the antenna axis.
However, as discussed in claim 15, Gasser discloses an antenna assembly wherein the antenna and ground plane are symmetrical. Furthermore, Hayashi does disclose (page 7, lines 3-14, of previously attached translation) that the shape of the antenna and the ground can be changed as needed to reach necessary parameters in the antenna operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified assembly of Hayashi wherein the first recess and the second recess are symmetrically arranged about the antenna axis, as suggested by the teachings of Gasser and Hayashi, in order to retain symmetry in the ground plane while providing symmetrical radiation/reception.
PNG
media_image1.png
405
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi, Gasser, and Hashimoto render obvious all limitations of base claim 16.
Hayashi also discloses wherein a portion of the connector section (5) is in the visible region (see fig. 7) of the window.
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi, Gasser, and Hashimoto render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the ground plane (17a/b) is disposed within a separation gap (See figs. 4/5) between the glass surface (12) and the metal frame (56), further comprising a conductive adhesive layer in the separation gap that electrically couples the ground plane to the metal frame (attached translation, page 5, lines 7-10, adhesive or adhesive tape is used to connect ground plane to the grounding member specifically to ground to the vehicle body).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi, Gasser, and Hashimoto render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Hayashi also discloses wherein the antenna is a dipole antenna (attached translation, page 7, lines 23-30).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, Gasser, and further in view of Funatsu et al. (WO 2024117114 A1), herein referred to as Funatsu.
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi and Gasser render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the conductive adhesive layer includes a urethane adhesive.
However, Funatsu discloses a similar antenna which employs a urethane adhesive (attached translation, lines 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the window of Hayashi wherein the conductive adhesive layer includes a urethane adhesive, as suggested by the teachings of Funatsu, for improved adherence and flexibility.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, Hashimoto, Gasser, and further in view of Funatsu.
Regarding claim 19, Hayashi, Gasser, and Hashimoto render obvious all limitations of base claim 18.
Hayashi does not disclose wherein the conductive adhesive layer includes a urethane adhesive.
However, Funatsu discloses a similar antenna which employs a urethane adhesive (attached translation, lines 19-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the antenna assembly of Hayashi wherein the conductive adhesive layer includes a urethane adhesive, as suggested by the teachings of Funatsu, for improved adherence and flexibility.
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 BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845