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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to claims 5, 9-12. And 14-21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 5, 9-12, and 14-21 have been withdrawn.
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 1-4 and 6-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US10957984; hereinafter Kato) in view of Yamada et al. (US20250055197; hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 1, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “An antenna device comprising an antenna (3a/3b/7) that has a dipole structure, and resonates and receives electric field energy of a radio wave in a frequency band to be used for space transmission wireless electric power feeding (inherent features of an antenna), wherein the antenna includes a first antenna element (3b/7) including a conductor (both parts are conductors) disposed on a contact face configured to come into contact with a metal member (14, fig. 3B), and a second antenna element (3a) including another conductor that is different from the conductor of the first antenna element (fig. 1), the second antenna element being provided in such a manner that the second antenna element does not come into contact with the human body or the metal member (see fig. 3B)”.
Kato does not disclose “wherein at least a portion of the second antenna element is disposed in a second plane, and wherein the first plane is spaced apart from the second plane along a line that is perpendicular to the first plane”.
However, Yamada teaches “wherein at least a portion of the second antenna element is disposed in a second plane (121), and wherein the first plane (121) is spaced apart from the second plane along a line that is perpendicular to the first plane (see fig. 2)”. Furthermore, applicants’ disclosure already teaches modifying the antenna structure between planar and stacked configurations (fig. 4-6 vs. 12-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Yamada and make Kato’s antenna device wherein at least a portion of the first antenna element is disposed in a first plane and wherein at least a portion of the second antenna element is disposed in a second plane, and wherein the first plane is spaced apart from the second plane along a line that is perpendicular to the first plane, in order to decrease the planar dimensions of the antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the frequency band comprises a 900 MHz band or a 2 GHz band (col. 13 lines 59-64; As described above, it can be understood in the RFID tag 1 of the first exemplary embodiment that a high-frequency signal (radio signal) having UHF-band communication frequencies (900 MHz band, e.g. 920 MHz) is in a transmittable/receivable frequency band whereas the heating frequencies (2.4 to 2.5 GHz))”.
Regarding claim 3, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the second antenna element has a length that is shorter than 1/4 of wavelength of the frequency band (col. 18 lines 19-21; According to the exemplary aspect, each LC parallel resonant circuit S in the plurality of LC parallel resonant circuits S is set so as to resonate with frequencies in the frequency band of 2.4 to 2.5 GHz. The line length of each LC parallel resonant circuit S is set to be shorter than ½ frequency of the frequency used as the predetermined communication frequency and further to be ¼ wavelength (λ/4) or less of the frequency band of the heating electromagnetic wave (2.4 to 2.5 GHz))”.
Regarding claim 4, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the first antenna element has at least one of a plate-like shape, a meander-like shape, or a coil-like shape (coil/meander shape in fig. 1), and the second antenna element has at least one of a plate-like shape, a meander-like shape, or a coil-like shape (coil/meander shape in fig. 1)”.
Regarding claim 6, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the second antenna element is configured to allow the antenna to resonate in the frequency band regardless of whether or not the first antenna element is in contact with the human body or the metal member (at least the second antenna will resonate regardless of contact with metal since it is not contacting can 14 in fig. 3B)”.
Regarding claim 7, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the first antenna element includes a conductor electrode including one material or a combination of two or more materials selected from gold, silver, aluminum, copper, iron, nickel, an alloy, electrically conductive resin, or electrically conductive rubber, and the second antenna element includes a conductor electrode including one material or a combination of two or more materials selected from gold, silver, aluminum, copper, iron, nickel, an alloy, electrically conductive resin, or electrically conductive rubber (col. 8 lines 46-48; the antenna pattern 3 created by a film of a conductive material, such as aluminum foil or copper foil)”.
Regarding claim 8, Kato (figs. 1-2) discloses “The antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising a rectifier circuit that has an input terminal coupled to the first antenna element and the second antenna element and that rectifies a signal received by the antenna from an alternating-current signal to a direct-current signal (the RFID chip 9 in the antenna inherently contains a rectifier by nature of being an RFID chip)”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-12, and 14-21 allowed.
Claims 5 and 9 are allowed for reciting previously indicated allowable subject matter.
Claims 6-8, 10-12, and 14-21 are allowed for their dependence.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
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 AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 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 on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845