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 statements (IDS) filed on 8/22/24 and 5/26/26 are considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Office has not provided any reasons or examples to support the conclusion that the species are indeed patentably distinct.” This is not found persuasive because, as indicated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election mailed 3/26/26, each species requires differentiating and mutually exclusive orientations and dispositions of the claimed elements (see Requirement for Restriction/Election, page 2 lines 14-24 and page 3 lines 1-7).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-4 and 8-14, as elected, are examined herein.
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 1-4 and 8-14 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 limitations of “|n1 - n2|/N ≤ 1.09x10-1 holds where n1 and n2 (n1 and n2 are integers equal to or larger than zero) are N-level gradation values (N is a natural number) in a case where a first region that exists without overlapping the second conductor layer in the pseudo layer and a second region that exists without overlapping the pseudo layer in the second conductor layer in the plan view are read at a resolution of 400 dpi” are indefinite in that: the values of n1, n2, and N are not defined such that they have a direct relation to any other feature of the claimed invention, leading to ambiguity as to how they and the restriction between them presented have bearing on the claimed invention; and, the limitation of “are read at a resolution of 400 dpi” is not defined in such clear, concise, and exact terms as to clearly communicate to one having ordinary skill in the art by what means or in what manner the claimed first region and second region are to be “read”. To expedite prosecution, the claim will be examined as best understood by the examiner.
Claims 2-4 and 8-14 are included for their dependency upon claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, as indicated for claim 1, the values of n1, n2, and N are not defined such that they have a direct relation to any other feature of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, as indicated for claim 1, the values of n2 and N are not defined such that they have a direct relation to any other feature of the claimed invention.
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 1-4 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyazaki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0192423).
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki et al. teaches (Figs. 2, 4C, 6, 7A-E) an antenna unit comprising: a dielectric layer (2) through which visible light transmits (¶28 lines 11-12); a first conductor layer (elements 3 disposed on top surface); a pseudo layer (4 disposed on top or bottom surface); and a second conductor layer provided separately from the first conductor layer (elements 3 disposed on bottom surface), wherein the first conductor layer is provided on a first principal surface side (top) of the dielectric layer with respect to the dielectric layer (see Fig. 4C), the second conductor layer is provided on the first principal surface side of the dielectric layer or a second principal surface side opposite to the first principal surface side with respect to the dielectric layer (see Fig. 6, resonant elements 3 may be categorized by size, the largest for example being considered a ‘first conductor layer’ and smaller being considered a ‘second conductor layer’, such that the second conductor layer is provided separately from the first conductor layer, and simultaneously also provided on the first principal side surface of the dielectric layer; or, see Fig. 4C, resonant elements 3 on the top surface may be considered a ‘first conductor layer’ and resonant elements 3 on the bottom surface may be considered a ‘second conductor layer’, such that the second conductor layer is provided separately from the first conductor layer, and the second conductor layer is provided on a second principal surface side opposite to the first principal surface side with respect to the dielectric layer), at least part of the pseudo layer is disposed around the second conductor layer in a plan view (see Fig. 6), and |n1 - n2|/N ≤ 1.09x10-1 holds where n1 and n2 (n1 and n2 are integers equal to or larger than zero) are N-level gradation values (N is a natural number) in a case where a first region that exists without overlapping the second conductor layer in the pseudo layer and a second region that exists without overlapping the pseudo layer in the second conductor layer in the plan view are read at a resolution of 400 dpi (this limitation, not being readily understood as claimed, is reasoned by the examiner as being taught by the referenced prior art, the other structural limitations of the claim being taught therein).
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 1, wherein |n1 - n2|/N ≤ 6.25x10-2 holds (this limitation, not being readily understood as claimed, is reasoned by the examiner as being taught by the referenced prior art, the other structural limitations of the claim being taught therein).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 1, where N = 256 and n2 ≤ 246 hold (this limitation, not being readily understood as claimed, is reasoned by the examiner as being taught by the referenced prior art, the other structural limitations of the claim being taught therein).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 1, wherein the first conductor layer includes a radiative conductor (3; see ¶33 line 11), the second conductor layer includes a ground conductor, and the second conductor layer is provided on the second principal surface side of the dielectric layer with respect to the dielectric layer (see ¶146, grounding layer may be included on the dielectric substrate, on a surface opposite side to the resonant element).
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 1, wherein the pseudo layer includes a pattern in which array elements are arrayed separately from each other (see Figs. 7A-E, ¶88).
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 8, wherein the array element has an electrical conductivity equal to or larger than 1x106 (S/m) (¶29, the dummy pattern 4 includes a conductive mesh; ¶70, the mesh may be made of gold, which has an electrical conductivity of 4.5x107 S/m).
Regarding claim 10, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 9, wherein the array elements each have a circular shape (see Fig. 7E), and the array elements have an average diameter equal to or smaller than λ0/2 where λ0 is a free-space wavelength of electric waves transmitted and received by the antenna unit (diameter a, see ¶31 and ¶87 lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 11, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 9, wherein the array elements each have a rectangular shape (see Fig. 7D), and the array elements each have a long side of a length equal to or smaller than λ0/2 where λ0 is a free-space wavelength of electric waves transmitted and received by the antenna unit (diagonal a is larger than a long side length, see ¶31 and ¶87 lines 5-9).
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 1, wherein the pseudo layer is made of an insulator, and the insulator has an electrical conductivity smaller than 1x106 (S/m) (¶35, 4 includes non-conductive material, a non-conductive material has electrical conductivity smaller than 1x106 (S/m)).
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki teaches the antenna unit according to claim 1, wherein the second conductor layer includes a mesh-like conductor pattern (see Fig. 6, ¶133; 3 includes a mesh-like conductor pattern).
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki teaches a window glass comprising the antenna unit according to claim 1 (See ¶143, ¶162).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0094098) teaches a multiple layer window glass antenna.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights