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 01/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4, 6 and 8-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome some of the drawing objections, specification objections, and some of 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/09/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35USC 112(b) rejections of claim 1, Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that “Without acquiescing the rejection, the revised claim set obviates the rejection. For the record, Applicant notes that claim 1 recites, "the conductor plate includes a radiation plate that is equipped with a radiation surface for radiating radio waves and is equipped with a feed point that is a location supplied with power from the transmission line."
Examiner respectfully disagree because the term “radiation plate” and “conductor plate” are still unclear as explained below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35USC 103 rejections of claim 3 which is now included in claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
reference characters “90” and “92” are not mentioned in the amended specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 1-2, 4, 6 and 8-20 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 recites the limitations “An antenna device comprising:
an antenna that transmits and receives radio waves of a prescribed frequency band; and
a transmission line that feeds electricity to a conductor plate that is a portion of the antenna, wherein:
the conductor plate includes a radiation plate that is equipped with a radiation surface for radiating radio waves and is equipped with a feed point that is a location supplied with power from the transmission line;
the feed point is provided at a position separated by a distance A from a centroid of the radiation plate when the radiation plate is viewed along a horizontal direction; and
when given a first straight line that passes through the centroid and the feed point, a second straight line that is orthogonal to the first straight line and passes through the centroid, a third straight line that passes through the feed point and is parallel to the second straight line, and a fourth straight line that is parallel to the second straight line and is symmetrical to the third straight line with respect to the second straight line, and when the centroid overlaps with the conductor plate when viewed along the thickness direction of the radiation plate,
when viewed along the thickness direction of the radiation plate, locations between an end portion of the transmission line connected to the feed point and an intersection portion, which is an intersection of the transmission with a peripheral edge portion of the conductor plate, overlap in the thickness direction of the radiation plate with a specified area between the third straight line and the fourth straight line,
the transmission line includes (a) a bending portion that overlaps with the centroid in the thickness direction of the radiation plate, and (b) a straight-line shaped portion, and the straight- line shaped portion is arranged so as to be orthogonal to a vehicle vertical direction and arranged so as to pass through the center of the conductor plate in the vehicle vertical direction” in lines 1-24 which renders the claim indefinite.
Although the claim recited “the conductor plate includes a radiation plate” but throughout the claim “the radiation plate” and “the conductor plate” are cited as 2 different elements when it recites the centroid of the radiation plate overlaps with the conductor plate. It is also not clear what the difference is between “the centroid of the radiation plate” and “the center of the conductor plate” while “the conductor plate includes a radiation plate”. It sounds like the claim is trying to claim the “conductor plate” comprising “ground conductor plate” and “radiation plate” as mentioned in para [0018] of the spec. When the centroid of the radiation plate overlaps the conductor plate or an intersection portion intersects with a peripheral edge portion of the conductor plate in the thickness direction, it sounds like the claim means the ground conductor plate. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the center of the conductor plate” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Examiner suggests amend the claim as follows:
An antenna device comprising:
an antenna that transmits and receives radio waves of a prescribed frequency band;
wherein the antenna comprising a radiation plate;
a ground conductor plate; and
a transmission line that feeds electricity to the radiation plate
the radiation plate that is equipped with a radiation surface for radiating radio waves and is equipped with a feed point that is a location supplied with power from the transmission line;
the feed point is provided at a position separated by a distance A from a centroid of the radiation plate when the radiation plate is viewed along a horizontal direction; and
when given a first straight line that passes through the centroid and the feed point, a second straight line that is orthogonal to the first straight line and passes through the centroid, a third straight line that passes through the feed point and is parallel to the second straight line, and a fourth straight line that is parallel to the second straight line and is symmetrical to the third straight line with respect to the second straight line, and when the centroid overlaps with a center of the ground conductor plate when viewed along the thickness direction of the radiation plate,
when viewed along the thickness direction of the radiation plate, locations between an end portion of the transmission line connected to the feed point and an intersection portion, which is an intersection of the transmission line with a peripheral edge portion of the ground conductor plate, overlap in the thickness direction of the radiation plate with a specified area between the third straight line and the fourth straight line,
the transmission line includes (a) a bending portion that overlaps with the centroid in the thickness direction of the radiation plate, and (b) a straight-line shaped portion, and the straight- line shaped portion is arranged so as to be orthogonal to a vehicle vertical direction and arranged so as to pass through the center of the ground conductor plate in the vehicle vertical direction.
Claims 2, 4, 6 and 8-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the antenna includes the radiation plate, a ground conductor plate that is a portion of the conductor plate” in lines 1-2 which renders the claim indefinite. It conflicts with claim 1 because the transmission line would not feed electricity to the ground conductor plate which is a part of a conductor plate.
Claims 10-14 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 9 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “A vehicle antenna device comprising: a vehicle window glass provided at a vehicle; and the antenna device of claim 1 disposed such that the radiation surface faces toward the vehicle window glass” in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the vehicle antenna device can comprise a vehicle window glass. Examiner suggests amending the claim to “A vehicle antenna device comprising:
the antenna device of claim 1 disposed such that the radiation surface faces toward a of a vehicle,
wherein, in the thickness direction of the radiation plate, an angle formed between the first straight line or the second straight line and an up-down direction of the vehicle is within 15o”.
Claim 20 inherits the indefiniteness of claim 19 and is subsequently rejected.
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights