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 .
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.
Claim 3-16 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 3 recites “an element group made up of a plurality of antenna elements, in which the antenna elements are arranged…” The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear if “a plurality of antenna elements” is related to the “an antenna element” of claim 1 or a different antenna elements because there is no antecedent basis established to the ‘antenna element’ of claim 1 mentioned in this claim. Thus it is unclear if the “a plurality of antenna elements” in this claim includes the limitations of “an antenna element” of claim 1 or not.
Claim 3 recites “the element group is made of a plurality of element groups which are arranged…” The recitation of “a plurality of element groups” is indefinite because it is unclear whether it is the ‘an element group’ previously mentioned in the claim or different element groups because there is no antecedent basis for “a plurality of element groups” in reference to the “an element group” previously recited in the claim. Thus it is unclear if the “a plurality of element groups” includes the limitations of the “an element group” previously recited in the claim or not.
Claim 4 is further rejected due to the recitation “each antenna element of each element group” and “each antenna element of an adjacent element group” due to the confusion from the claim 3 as described in the claim 3 rejection under this section.
Claims 5-16 recite either ‘λ.sub.0’ or ‘λ.sub.g’ and state these wavelengths as either “the wavelength of a used frequency” or “the wavelength of a used frequency in free space”. The limitations are indefinite and unclear because it is not apparent what either of these ‘used frequencies’ imply relative to the antenna. For example, a wavelength would be relative to the used operational frequency of the antenna or relative to another antenna’s used frequency. A skilled artisan would not be apprised of what these ‘used frequencies’ so as to be unable to determine the ‘metes and bounds’ of the limitation. The Examiner pressures the ‘used frequency’ refers to the ‘used operational frequency of the antenna device’.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2010124194A (hereinafter “Nishimoto”) (see English translation attached to document).
Claim 1: Nishimoto teaches an antenna device comprising: a ground component (e.g., see 3 in FIG. 1, 7, see Para. 11) made of a columnar or cylindrical conductor and connected to a ground potential (e.g., see Para. 11); a cover component (e.g., see 36 in FIG. 7, see Para. 57) made of a material containing dielectrics, having a cylindrical shape, into which the ground component is inserted, the cover component being arranged at a distance from the ground component so as to cover an outer surface of the ground component (e.g., as shown); and an antenna (e.g., see groups 1 and 2 having multiple antenna elements 11, 12, 13, 14) element arranged between an inner surface of the cover component and the outer surface of the ground component (e.g., as shown).
Claim 2: Nishimoto teaches the antenna device according to claim 1, wherein the antenna element is made up of a plurality of antenna elements which are arranged at equal angular intervals around a central axis of the ground component (e.g., see plurality of antenna elements 11, 12 and 13, 14 arranged at equal angular intervals in FIGS. 1, 7).
Claim 3: Nishimoto teaches the antenna device according to claim 1, further comprising: an element group (e.g., see element groups 1 and 2 in FIGS. 1, 7) made up of a plurality of antenna elements, in which the antenna elements are arranged at equal angular intervals around a central axis of the ground component (e.g., as shown), wherein the element group is made up of a plurality of element groups which are arranged side by side at predetermined intervals along the central axis of the ground component (e.g., as shown).
Claim 4: Nishimoto teaches the antenna device according to claim 3, wherein each antenna element of each element group is arranged at a shifted position around the central axis of the ground component with respect to a position of each antenna element of an adjacent element group (e.g., see shifted position of 13, 14 in antenna element group 2 compared to 11, 12 in antenna element group 1 in FIG. 1, 7).
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(s) 5-6, 8-10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto.
Claim 5, 8, 9, and 10: Nishimoto teaches the antenna device according to claim 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, wherein the cover component is arranged coaxially with the ground component (e.g., 36 arranged coaxially with 3 as shown in FIG. 7), but not m×0.4×λ.sub.0≤a≤m×0.6×λ.sub.0 is satisfied where λ.sub.0 is the wavelength of a used frequency in free space, a is a distance between the inner surface of the cover component and the outer surface of the ground component, and m=1, 2, 3, and so on.
However Nishimoto teaches that the distance between two first antenna conductors 1 facing each other across the ground component 3 and/or two second conductors 2 is half a wavelength (e.g., see Para. 23).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the distance between the inner surface of the cover component and the outer surface of the ground component is in a range m×0.4×λ.sub.0≤a≤m×0.6×λ.sub.0 since the distance is only a little longer than the distance between antenna elements (for m=2) 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. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to ensure that while the distance between the antenna elements meet the requirement of Nishimoto of half a wavelength while also ensuring electromagnetic transparency, minimizing impedance detuning, and/or reducing parasitic near-field coupling between the cover and the ground component.
Claim 6, 14, 15, and 16: Nishimoto does not explicitly teach the antenna device according to claim 5, 8, 9, and 10, respectively, wherein each antenna element is arranged within a range of (2n−4/3)×λ.sub.0/4 to (2n−2/3)×λ.sub.0/4, where n=1, 2, 3, and so on, from the outer surface of the ground component.
However Nishimoto teaches that the distance between two first antenna conductors 1 facing each other across the ground component 3 and/or two second conductors 2 is half a wavelength (e.g., see Para. 23).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form wherein each antenna element is arranged within a range of (2n−4/3)×λ.sub.0/4 to (2n−2/3)×λ.sub.0/4 since the distance is within the range of the distance between antenna elements and only a little longer than half a wavelength (e.g., for n=2) 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. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to ensure that while the distance between the antenna elements meet the requirement of Nishimoto of half a wavelength while also to optimize radiation pattern and impedance matching in ground-mounted or ground-reflected antenna configuration.
Claim(s) 7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimoto in view of US 20120044113 (hereinafter “Satoh”).
Claim 7, 11, 12, and 13: Nishimoto does not teach the antenna device according to claim 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, wherein a thickness t of the cover component is (2q−4/3)×λ.sub.g/4≤t≤(2q−2/3)×λg/4, where λg is the wavelength of a used frequency in the cover component and q=1, 2, 3, and so on.
However Satoh teaches wherein a cover component (e.g., see 130) is spaced from a ground component (e.g., see 140) and antenna elements (e.g., see 110) between them. Satoh further teaches the thickness of the cover component has an optimal gain of the antenna at a quarter wavelength and ¾ wavelength (e.g., see FIG. 4).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the thickness of the cover component is (2q−4/3)×λg/4≤t≤(2q−2/3)×λg/4, where λg is the wavelength of a used frequency in the cover component and q=1, 2, 3, and so on based on the teachings of Satoh in order to ensure that the cover thickness is designed to optimize impedance matching and minimize energy reflection by controlling the phase of the transmitted wave.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights