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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in JP on 01/26/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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, the feature “wherein the base includes a configuration to draw an antenna cable in a predetermined direction other than a direction perpendicular to the base” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim 5. Drawings do not show the antenna cable and the predetermined direction.
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 1-5 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 recites the limitation "wherein a first attachment structure capable of attaching the at least a portion of the antenna element to the base is disposed at a position substantially symmetrical to a position to which the antenna element is attached with regard to a center of the base" in lines 5-7 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what the claim limitation means. In fig. 3, the position of the first attachment structure 210A is the same with the position to which the antenna element 410A and 420A are attached, so what are symmetrical with regard to a center of the base. It is not clear if the claim means the plurality of first attachment structure 210A are disposed at a position symmetrical to the center of the base 100A as shown in fig. 3. Moreover, the term “substantially symmetrical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially symmetrical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the difference between “symmetrical” and “substantially symmetrical”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claims 2-5 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein a second attachment structure attaching at least a portion of the case to the base is disposed substantially symmetrically" in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what the claim limitation means. The claim does not mention the direction or reference point that the second attachment structure is disposed symmetrically. It is not clear if the claim means the plurality of second attachment structure 114A are disposed symmetrically to the center of the base 100A as shown in fig. 3. Moreover, the term “substantially symmetrical” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially symmetrical” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the difference between “symmetrically” and “substantially symmetrically”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " wherein the base is substantially rotationally symmetric as viewed from a predetermined direction" in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially rotationally symmetric” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially rotationally symmetric” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the difference between “symmetric”, “rotationally symmetric” and “substantially rotationally symmetric”. Moreover, the housing is not circular, so it is not clear how it can be rotationally symmetric. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
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.
(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 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)& (a)(2) as being anticipated by Reece et al, US-20020015000-A1 (hereinafter Reece).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Reece discloses the following:
an antenna device comprising:
a base (101, 150, fig. 12a); and
an antenna element (102a, 102b, 210a, 210b), at least a portion of the antenna element being attached to the base (fig. 12a),
wherein a first attachment structure (201, 202, fig. 12-d, 12e, 206, fig. 12b, para [0083]) capable of attaching the at least a portion of the antenna element (102a, 102b, 210a, 210b) to the base is disposed at a position substantially symmetrical to a position to which the antenna element is attached with regard to a center of the base (fig. 12a, 12b).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Reece discloses the antenna device according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a case (152, fig. 12a) forming an accommodation room accommodating the antenna element (102a, 102b, 210a, 210b),
wherein a second attachment structure (162, 160) attaching at least a portion of the case (152) to the base (101, 150) is disposed substantially symmetrically.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Reece discloses wherein the base (152, fig. 12a) is substantially rotationally symmetric as viewed from a predetermined direction (fig. 12a).
Regarding claim 5, Reece discloses wherein the base (101, fig. 12c) includes a configuration to draw an antenna cable (112) in a predetermined direction other than a direction perpendicular to the base (fig. 12c).
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 Reece as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of 中田 徳純 et al, JP-6979325-B2 (hereinafter 中田 徳純).
Regarding claim 3, Reece does not disclose the antenna device according to Claim 1 further comprising: a fastener to fasten the base to a vehicle, wherein at least a portion of the fastener overlaps with the center of the base.
中田 徳純 suggests the antenna device further comprising: a fastener (20, fig. 3) to fasten the base to a vehicle (page 5, last para), wherein at least a portion of the fastener overlaps with the center of the base (fig. 2, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a fastener as suggested in 中田 徳純 to the antenna device taught in Reece as claimed for the purpose of attaching the antenna device to the vehicle in order to provide wireless communication.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Suffolk et al, US-20170229767-A1, fig. 3 – plurality of antenna elements mounted symmetrically on a base
Ohno et al, WO-2016017278-A1, fig. 4 – plurality of antenna elements mounted symmetrically on a base
Billsberry et al, US-9019161-B1, fig. 2 – plurality of antenna elements mounted symmetrically on a base
Hyuk-Joon et al, US-6697019-B1, fig. 5 – plurality of antenna elements mounted symmetrically on a base
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/ANH N HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845