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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizoguchi (JP 2012054915).
Regarding claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses in Figure 12 and page 11 of translation, an antenna device comprising:
an antenna base (101);
an antenna case (9) forming an accommodation space together with the antenna base; and
a first antenna element (83) accommodated in the accommodation space, wherein the first antenna element (83) is disposed along a direction intersecting a longitudinal direction of the antenna base, and wherein the first antenna element (83) includes a feeding point (86) and is configured as a reflector (see page 11 of translation) of another antenna accommodated in the accommodation space.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses in Figure 13, further comprising:
a second antenna element (81) disposed on one side in the longitudinal direction with respect to the first antenna element (83), wherein the second antenna element (81) is disposed along the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses in Figure 12,
wherein the first antenna element (83) is a monopole antenna that includes a base end portion including the feeding point (86).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi (JP 2012054915).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Mizoguchi discloses in Figure 13,
a third antenna element (82) disposed on an other side in the longitudinal direction with respect to the first antenna element (83).
Mizoguchi does not disclose a height of the first antenna element less than at least one of a height of the second antenna element and a height of the third antenna element.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set or select the height of the first antenna element being shorter than the second or third antenna element for achieving a desired operating frequency and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, to employ having the height of the first antenna element as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 4-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi (JP 2012054915) in view Terashita (US 2019/0280372).
Regarding claim 4, Mizoguchi discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for further comprising:
two capacitive loading elements overlapping with the antenna base, wherein the first antenna element is disposed between regions of the antenna base overlapping with the two capacitive loading elements.
Terashita discloses in Figure 2 and par. 0076, two capacitive loading elements (131, 132) overlapping with the antenna base (20), wherein the first antenna element (134) is disposed between regions of the antenna base (20) overlapping with the two capacitive loading elements (131, 132).
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 first antenna element of Mizoguchi with the first antenna element having loading elements being capacitive loading elements as taught by Terashita to improve antenna gain. Therefore, to employ having the first antenna element having the capacitive loading elements as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Terashita discloses in Figure 2,
wherein a height of the first antenna element (134) is less than a height of at least one of the two capacitive loading elements (131, 132).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Terashita discloses in Figures 2 and 7-8, further comprising
a capacitive loading element (131, 132), wherein the first antenna element (134) is located below the capacitive loading element (131, 132), and wherein in a top view the first antenna element (134) and the capacitive loading element (131, 132) at least partially overlap with each other.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Terashita discloses in Figures 2 and 7-8, further comprising
a capacitive loading element (131, 132), wherein the first antenna element (134) is located below the capacitive loading element (131, 132), and wherein
in a side view a distance from the antenna base to an upper end of the first antenna element (134) is less than a distance from the antenna base to a lower end of the capacitive loading element (131, 132).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 1, Mizoguchi (see Fig. 13) and Terashita (Figures 2, 7-8,) discloses in further comprising
a second antenna element (81) and a third antenna element (82) disposed along the longitudinal direction, wherein the first antenna element (83) is located between the second antenna element (81) and the third antenna element (82) in the longitudinal direction.
Mizoguchi does not disclose wherein in a side view a distance from the antenna base to an upper end of first antenna element is less than both a distance from the antenna base to an upper end of the second antenna element and a distance from the antenna base to an upper end of the third antenna element. However, such difference is not patentable merit.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set or select the distance of the first antenna element being shorter than the second and third antenna elements for achieving a desired operating frequency, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, to employ having the height of the first antenna element as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi (JP 2012054915) in view of Bunpei (WO 2020075744).
Regarding claim 6, Mizoguchi discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 1, except for the first antenna element including a portion to operate as a self-similar antenna or an antenna equivalent to the self-similar antenna. However, such difference is not patentable merit. A self-similar antenna is a well-known type antenna in the art. One of such examples is the teaching of Bunpei discloses in Figure 1, the antenna element (100) including a portion to operate as a self-similar antenna or an antenna equivalent to the self-similar antenna (100).
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 antenna of Mizoguchi with the antenna being a self-similar antenna as taught by Bunpei to achieve desired radiation characteristic for the antenna device and since such modification would have involved a mere change in a type of an antenna generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 6, Mizoguchi discloses in Figure 12,
wherein the portion of the first antenna element (83) includes a base end portion including the feeding point (86).
Regarding claims 13-14, as applied to claim 8, Bunpei discloses in Figure 1,
wherein a width of the first antenna element (100-2) in the direction intersecting the longitudinal direction increases from the base end portion toward an upper end of the first antenna element;
a width of the first antenna element (100-2) in the direction intersecting the longitudinal direction on a distal side with respect to the base end portion is greater than a width of the first antenna element on a proximal side with respect to the base end portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 CRUZ 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights