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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the 35 USC 112(b) rejections as follow.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, claims 1 and 9 respectively reciting “when the first surface is viewed in a plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line extending from a radiation surface of the antenna passes over the first surface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 1-11 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 reciting “a base substrate; an antenna mounted to a mount surface” are indefinite, since (a) it’s unclear how or whether the “base substrate” and the “mount surface” have any interconnection with rest of the claimed elements, and (b) it’s not understood which “mount surface” is being referred to. It other words, it’s unclear what structural interrelationship the base substrate and the mount surface have with rest of the limitations in claim 1.
As such, scope of claim 1 cannot be ascertained.
For examination purposes, the indefinite limitations will be interpreted as --a base substrate; an antenna mounted to a mount surface of the base substrate--.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for depending therefrom.
Claim 5 reciting second instances of “an imaginary perpendicular line” and “a radiation surface” are indefinite, since it’s unclear whether these are related (or in addition) to those recited in claim 1, respectively.
Claims 1 and 9 respectively reciting “when the first surface is viewed in a plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line extending from a radiation surface of the antenna passes over the first surface” are indefinite, since it’s unclear how the “imaginary line…passes over the first surface”. In other words, it’s NOT understood what is meant by “passes over”.
The spec. discloses, e.g., in ¶ 111 of the printed publication:
[0111] An imaginary perpendicular line B extending from a radiation surface 12a of the patch antenna element 12 passes above the AMC 6. Each of the imaginary perpendicular lines B extending from the radiation surfaces of the four patch antenna elements 12 passes above the AMC 6. That is, as shown in FIG. 2, when the first surface 6c of the AMC 6 is viewed in a plan view, the imaginary perpendicular lines B pass the first surface 6c. Each imaginary perpendicular line B indicates the radiation direction of the radio wave radiated from the corresponding radiation surface 12a. Thus, the AMC 6 extends along the radiation direction of the patch antenna element 12.
As such, for examination purposes, last clause of claims 1 and 9 will be interpreted as --when the first surface is viewed in a plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line extending from a radiation surface of the antenna passes above the first surface such that the conductor member extends along a radiation direction of the antenna--.
There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable (vehicle) antenna module.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Crawford” (US 6456242).
Claim 1: As best understood, Crawford discloses an antenna module comprising:
a base substrate 510 (Fig. 9);
an antenna 520, 550 mounted to a mount surface; and
a conductor member 508 having a plate shape and arranged so as to be adjacent to the antenna (see Fig. 9),
the conductor member having a first (top) surface on which a plurality of first unit cells 530, 540 made (inherently) of a conductor are regularly arrayed, wherein
the conductor member has a base end B adjacent to the antenna,
PNG
media_image1.png
378
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first surface extends from the base end along the mount surface (see Fig. 9), and
when the first surface is viewed in a plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line I extending from a radiation surface of the antenna passes over the first surface (see Fig. 9).
Claim 5: As best understood, Crawford teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the antenna includes one or a plurality of patch antenna elements, and when the first surface is viewed in the plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line I extending from a radiation surface of the one or the plurality of patch antenna elements passes over the first surface (see Fig. 9 reproduced above).
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Takahashi” (US 2023/0238708)
Claim 1: As best understood, Takahashi discloses an antenna module comprising:
a base substrate 5 (Fig. 1 reproduced below);
an antenna 6 mounted to a mount surface (atop substrate 5); and
a conductor member 10 having a plate shape and arranged so as to be adjacent to the antenna (see Fig. 1),
PNG
media_image2.png
414
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the conductor member having a first (top) surface on which a plurality of first unit cells 11-12 made of a conductor are regularly arrayed, wherein
the conductor member has a base end B adjacent to the antenna,
the first surface extends from the base end along the mount surface (see Fig. 1 above), and
when the first surface is viewed in a plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line I extending from a radiation surface of the antenna passes over the first surface (a skilled artisan would appreciate that the imaginary line I passes “over” the first surface by virtue of it not crossing or interacting with said first surface).
Claim 2: Takahashi teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the conductor member includes:
a first ground conductor layer 7 (Fig. 1); and
a first dielectric layer 5 present between the plurality of first unit cells and the first ground conductor layer.
Takahashi fails to expressly teach an electrical length between a boundary between the plurality of first unit cells and the first dielectric layer, and a boundary between the first ground conductor layer and the first dielectric layer is 0.03 or greater.
However, Takahashi teaches in ¶ [0039], “the attenuation characteristics of the electromagnetic wave by the plurality of EBG elements 10 can be designed by adjusting values (inductance and capacitance) of the elements in the above-described equivalent circuit. Examples of the attenuation characteristics include an attenuation bandwidth, an attenuation amount, and the like. The values of the elements can be adjusted by changing parameters that define the structure of the plurality of EBG elements 10. Some examples of the parameters will be described.”
Nevertheless, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi’s invention such that an electrical length between a boundary between the plurality of first unit cells and the first dielectric layer, and a boundary between the first ground conductor layer and the first dielectric layer is 0.03 or greater, in order to obtain a desired attenuation bandwidth or attenuation amount.
Claim 3: Takahashi teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the conductor member has an outer end O (Fig. 1 reproduced above) on a side opposite to the base end B, the first surface extends from the base end to the outer end (see Fig. 1 above).
Takahashi fails to expressly teach a ratio of a distance from the base end to the outer end relative to a vacuum wavelength of a radio wave radiated from the antenna is 1 or greater.
Nevertheless, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi’s invention such that a ratio of a distance from the base end to the outer end relative to a vacuum wavelength of a radio wave radiated from the antenna is 1 or greater, in order to obtain a desired attenuation bandwidth or attenuation amount.
Claim 4: Takahashi teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the conductor member has an outer end O (Fig. 1 reproduced above) on a side opposite to the base end B, the first surface extends from the base end to the outer end (see Fig. 1 above).
Takahashi fails to expressly teach a distance from the base end to the outer end is 10.7 mm or more.
Nevertheless, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Takahashi’s invention such that a distance from the base end to the outer end is 10.7 mm or more, in order to obtain a desired attenuation bandwidth or attenuation amount.
Claim 5: As best understood, Takahashi teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the antenna includes one or a plurality of patch antenna elements (see Figs. 1 and 5-10), and when the first surface is viewed in the plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line I (in Z direction in Fig. 1 below) extending from a radiation surface of the one or the plurality of patch antenna elements passes the first surface (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
414
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Takahashi teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein a frequency of a radio wave transmitted and received by the antenna is 20 GHz or higher (Figs. 11-12, ¶ [0062]).
Claim 8: Takahashi teaches the antenna module according to claim 1, wherein the mount surface is a roof surface of a vehicle 2900 (Fig. 15; the antenna is part of 2926, see ¶¶ [0081-0083]).
Claim 9: As best understood, Takahashi discloses a vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body 2900 (Fig. 15);
an antenna 6 (Fig. 1 reproduced above) mounted to an upper (roof) surface of the vehicle body (the antenna is part of 2926 in Fig. 15, see ¶¶ [0081-0083]); and
a conductor member 10 having a plate shape and mounted to the upper surface so as to be adjacent to the antenna (see Fig. 1),
the conductor member having a first surface (top surface of substrate 5) on which a plurality of first unit cells 11-12 made of a conductor are regularly arrayed, wherein
the conductor member has a base end B adjacent to the antenna,
the first surface extends from the base end along the upper surface (see Fig. 1 above), and
when the first surface is viewed in a plan view, an imaginary perpendicular line I extending from a radiation surface of the antenna passes over the first surface (a skilled artisan would appreciate that the imaginary line I passes “over” the first surface by virtue of it not crossing or interacting with said first surface).
Claims 10-11: Takahashi teaches the vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the conductor member is a body separate from the antenna (see Fig. 1);
wherein the conductor member includes an artificial magnetic conductor EBG (abstract; a skilled artisan would appreciate that an EBG is synonymous to an artificial magnetic conductor AMC).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizunuma (US 11133574)
Yun (US 10868362)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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 on (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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845