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 statement (IDS) filed on 6/21/24 is considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 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 “the communication unit is disposed inside the antenna at a position where a magnetic field strength is relatively high” does not describe the disposition of the communication unit in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make sufficiently definite in what position the communication unit is claimed to be, thus introducing ambiguity and rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In further detail, the “a magnetic field” as recited may be arbitrarily defined, as it is not claimed as being related to the electromagnetic field generated by the claimed apparatus, and the qualifying limitation of “relatively high” is definitionally a relative term, and thus must be defined in magnitude and relative to some other definable metric to be sufficiently limiting. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-10 are included for their dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of “disposed at the first conductor in a vicinity of the first connection conductor or the second connection conductor” does not describe the disposition of the communication unit in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make sufficiently definite in what position the communication unit is claimed to be, thus introducing ambiguity and rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In further detail, “at” and “in a vicinity” are not sufficiently definite terms of relative location, and may thus be arbitrarily defined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 3-4 are included for their dependency upon claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of “disposed at the first conductor in a vicinity of one of the first connection conductor and the second connection conductor that is farther from the feeding point” does not describe the disposition of the communication unit in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make sufficiently definite in what position the communication unit is claimed to be, thus introducing ambiguity and rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In further detail, “at” and “in a vicinity” are not sufficiently definite terms of relative location, and may thus be arbitrarily defined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of “disposed at the first conductor in a vicinity of one of the first connection conductor and the second connection conductor that is closer to the feeding point” does not describe the disposition of the communication unit in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make sufficiently definite in what position the communication unit is claimed to be, thus introducing ambiguity and rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In further detail, “in a vicinity” is not a sufficiently definite term of relative location, and may thus be arbitrarily defined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “disposed at the second conductor or the third conductor in a vicinity of the first connection conductor or the second connection conductor” does not describe the disposition of the communication unit in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make sufficiently definite in what position the communication unit is claimed to be, thus introducing ambiguity and rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In further detail, “at” and “in a vicinity” are not sufficiently definite terms of relative location, and may thus be arbitrarily defined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claim 6 is included for its dependency upon claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation of “disposed at the second conductor or the third conductor in a vicinity of one of the first connection conductor or the second connection conductor that is closer to the feeding point” does not describe the disposition of the communication unit in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to make sufficiently definite in what position the communication unit is claimed to be, thus introducing ambiguity and rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. In further detail, “at” and “in a vicinity” are not sufficiently definite terms of relative location, and may thus be arbitrarily defined. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0351514).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, Ikeda et al. teaches (Fig. 13) a wireless communication apparatus comprising: an antenna (105); and a communication unit (61) disposed inside the antenna and configured to perform wireless communication with an external apparatus via the antenna (¶186), wherein the antenna comprises: a first conductor (80A); a second conductor (80B right) facing a first end portion, in a first direction (X), of the first conductor (right end portion), coupled to the first conductor (via 40A), and expanding in the first plane direction (XY plane); a third conductor (80B left) facing a second end portion, in the first direction (X) of the first conductor (left end portion), coupled to the first conductor (via 30A), and expanding in the first plane direction (XY plane), the second conductor and the third conductor being aligned in the first direction (X); at least one fourth conductor (11E) between the second conductor and the third conductor in the first direction (see Fig. 13), the at least one fourth conductor being located apart from the second conductor and the third conductor, and expanding in the first plane direction (see Fig. 13); a first connection conductor comprising one end connected to the first conductor and the other end connected to the second conductor (40A); a second connection conductor comprising one end connected to the first conductor and the other end connected to the third conductor (30A); and a power feeding conductor (11A connected to 10A, or 11B connected to 10B; see ¶91) comprising one end connected to a feeding point (10A, or 10B) and the other end connected to a conductor facing the feeding point among the first conductor, the second conductor, the third conductor, and the at least one fourth conductor (connected to 80B left), and the communication unit (61) is disposed inside the antenna at a position where a magnetic field strength is relatively high (see ¶51).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood by the examiner, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit is disposed at the first conductor in a vicinity of the first connection conductor or the second connection conductor (element 61 may be understood to be ‘at’ 80A, being in its relative proximity, and for example, in the vicinity of the first connection conductor 40A, or the second connection conductor 30B).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood by the examiner, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the communication unit is disposed at the first conductor in a vicinity of one of the first connection conductor and the second connection conductor that is farther from the feeding point (element 61 may be understood to be ‘at’ 80A, being in its relative proximity, and for example, in the vicinity of the first connection conductor 40A, or the second connection conductor 30B, each being relatively farther from or closer to the feeding points 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood by the examiner, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the communication unit is disposed at the first conductor in a vicinity of one of the first connection conductor and the second connection conductor that is closer to the feeding point (element 61 may be understood to be ‘at’ 80A, being in its relative proximity, and for example, in the vicinity of the first connection conductor 40A, or the second connection conductor 30B, each being relatively farther from or closer to the feeding points 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood by the examiner, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the communication unit is disposed at the second conductor or the third conductor in a vicinity of the first connection conductor or the second connection conductor (element 61 may be understood to be ‘at’ 80B right, being in its proximity, for example, and in the vicinity of the first connection conductor 40A).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood by the examiner, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the communication unit is disposed at the second conductor or the third conductor in a vicinity of one of the first connection conductor or the second connection conductor that is closer to the feeding point (element 61 may be understood to be ‘at’ 80B right or 80B left, being in their relative proximity, and for example, in the vicinity of the first connection conductor 40A, or the second connection conductor 30B, each being relatively farther from or closer to the feeding points 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a length of the antenna in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction in the first plane direction (Y) is shorter than a length of the antenna in the first direction (X) (see relative Y and X dimension of antenna in Figs. 1 and 8, the Y dimension being shorter than the X dimension; apparatus 101 differs from 105 only in wherein the surface mounted components are mounted and a RW module is provided, see ¶181, thus it may be understood that 105 shares X and Y dimensions with 101).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0351514) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanemura et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2008/0316110).
Regarding claim 8, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1.
Ikeda does not teach the first conductor, the first connection conductor, the second connection conductor, and the power feeding conductor being made of a single-piece metal member. However, the formation of a plurality of or all contiguous parts of an antenna from a single-piece metal member is well known to persons having ordinary skill in the art.
For example, Kanemura et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a wireless communication apparatus comprising: an antenna (1’), wherein the antenna comprises: a first conductor (10) expanding in a first plane direction; a second conductor (51(50)) facing a first end portion, in a first direction (horizontal), of the first conductor, coupled to the first conductor (via 55 right), and expanding in the first plane direction; a third conductor (52(50)) facing a second end portion, in the first direction, of the first conductor, coupled to the first conductor (via 55 left), and expanding in the first plane direction, the second conductor and the third conductor being aligned in the first direction (horizontal); a first connection conductor comprising one end connected to the first conductor and the other end connected to the second conductor (55 right); a second connection conductor comprising one end connected to the first conductor and the other end connected to the third conductor (55 left); and a power feeding conductor (15) comprising one end connected to a feeding point (42) and the other end connected to the first conductor (see Fig. 3), wherein the first conductor (10), the first connection conductor (55 right), the second connection conductor (55 left), and the power feeding conductor (15) are made of a single-piece metal member (see ¶49).
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 wireless communication apparatus of Ikeda by forming the first conductor, the first connection conductor, the second connection conductor, and the power feeding conductor to be made of a single-piece metal member, employing the teachings of Kanemura, since such modification would have involved a mere change in materials. A change in materials is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of achieving simplification and efficiency in connecting work of the transmission/reception element (Kanemura, ¶66).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0351514).
Regarding claim 9, Ikeda teaches the wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1.
In this embodiment, Ikeda does not teach wherein the antenna is mounted at a conductive article on a side on which the first conductor is located.
In an additional embodiment (Fig. 21), Ikeda teaches an analogous antenna (101) being mounted at a conductive article on a side on which the first conductor is provided (the first conductor extending the full dimension in the XY plane, it is considered to be provided similarly on the side with which it shares a plane and is nearest to as well as the four adjacent sides of the rectangular prism shape of the antenna; see Fig. 21, 101 is mounted on 200, a circuit substrate, being a conductive article capable of conducting electrical signals).
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 wireless communication apparatus of the one embodiment of Ikeda by mounting it at a conductive article on a side on which the first conductor is provided, employing the teachings of the other embodiment of Ikeda.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of electrically integrating the antenna with other functional components (Ikeda, ¶208).
Regarding claim 10, Ikeda teaches wireless communication apparatus according to claim 1.
In this embodiment, Ikeda does not each a structure comprising the wireless communication apparatus.
In an additional embodiment (Fig. 16), Ikeda teaches a structure comprising an analogous wireless communication apparatus (see Fig. 16 structure 301, comprising 101, analogous to 105, see again ¶181).
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 wireless communication apparatus of the one embodiment of Ikeda by including it in a structure, employing the teachings of the other embodiment of Ikeda.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the structure to employ the wireless communication capability of the wireless communication apparatus (Ikeda, ¶196).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yamamoto (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0405541), Uchimura (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0384952), Yamamoto (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0405542), and Yoshikawa et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0384634) share various features with the instant invention.
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