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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: The addition of the limitation “wherein the radiator assembly engages with the latching element” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The feature in question was previously presented in dependent claim 9 of the original claims filed with the application, which was previously objected to as being allowable if rewritten in independent form. The claim originally recited the feature as “wherein the radiator assembly, in particular a mounting bridge of the radiator assembly, engages with the latching element.” This feature of the invention is best illustrated in figure 6 of the drawings which shows how mounting bridge 68 of radiator assembly 16 engages with the latching element 72 of the second matching section 40.
In the reply filed November 7, 2025, Applicant amended into independent claim 1 only part of the limitations recited in claim 9, and left behind the part of the invention pertaining to the mounting bridge of the radiator assembly being the part of the radiating assembly which performs the act of engaging with the latching element. By amending the independent claim in this manner, it stands to reason that Applicant does not intend to limit the claimed invention to only using a mounting bridge of the radiator assembly to engage with the latching element, but instead wishes for the scope of the claimed invention to encompass, in addition to a mounting bridge, other arrangements of the radiator assembly to engage with the latching element. These other arrangements now limited by the claim were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant does show that he was in possession of other embodiments for securely mounting the radiator assembly 16 to the second mounting section 40. These are best illustrated in figures 9 and 10 of the drawings. In the embodiment shown in figure 9, the reflector 66 of radiating assembly 16 is placed onto a mounting piece 88 and fixed to the mounting piece 88 using a bolt or a screw 92. It may appear that Applicant’s intention for not limiting the independent claim to a mounting bridge of the radiator assembly that engages with the latching element was to patent an antenna which encompassed, in addition to the mounting bridge, the embodiment shown in figure 9. This cannot be the case, however, as the use of a mounting bridge is mutually exclusive to using a bolt or screw, and the recitation of a latching element in the independent claim would imply that the claim does not cover the embodiment in figure 9. In the other embodiment shown in figure 10, a mounting bridge of the radiator assembly is also used to engage with the latching element (Spec., pg. 16, lns. 13-15), and since this embodiment also includes a mounting bridge, it does not resolve the issue of whether Applicant has shown to have been in possession, at the time of filing, of whatever additional arrangements for the radiating assembly to engage with the latching element are now encompassed by the claim.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 include the same issue due to their dependency on claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7 and 8 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 7: The limitation “or a mounting piece of the radiator assembly are located in the second groove” renders the scope of the claim indefinite. This limitation is directed to the embodiment shown in figure 9 which is mutually exclusive to using the latching element recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 includes the same issue due to its dependency on claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 5-7 of the Remarks filed November 7, 2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of August 8, 2025 has been withdrawn.
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 ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/Robert Karacsony/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845