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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is ‘configured to’ perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites in part “17. (New) The antenna module as claimed in claim 6, wherein the cap has an indentation or recessed contour configured to be embedded in in each case one sheet-metal antenna.”. “…in in each case” appears to be a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-18 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 17 recites in full:
17. (New) The antenna module as claimed in claim 6, wherein the cap has an indentation or recessed contour configured to be embedded in in each case one sheet-metal antenna. It is unclear if “configured to be embedded in [is something missing here?] in each case one sheet-metal antenna. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim. The examiner interprets claim 17 to read configured to be embedded in
Claim 18 recites in full:
18. (New) The antenna module as claimed in claim 7, wherein the engaging at least one of centers and protects from rattling. It is unclear what is being engaged (specifically, engaging at least one of [what]?). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
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 1-5, 10, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Laird (WO 2016/019784), - of record, hereinafter Laird.
Regarding claim 1 Laird discloses an antenna comprising: at least one sheet-metal antenna (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 114 or 118) for receiving and/or transmitting radio signals, wherein the sheet-metal antenna comprises at least one connecting element (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 115 or 119) which is formed in one piece with the sheet-metal antenna configured to make direct contact with a printed circuit board (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 116 and 120).
PNG
media_image1.png
1238
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 1 wherein the sheet-metal antenna is a bent sheet-metal antenna (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 114 or 118).
Regarding claim 3 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed In claim 1 wherein the at least one connecting element of a sheet-metal antenna is in each case a press-fit connection (e.g., paragraphs 0056-0058).
Regarding claim 4 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 1, the sheet-metal antenna has a plurality of connecting elements (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 115 and 119 and 124), which are formed in one piece with the sheet-metal antenna and are configured to make making contact with a printed circuit board.
Regarding claim 5 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 1, wherein the antenna module comprises at least two sheet-metal cellular mobile communication antennas (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 114 and 118; paragraph 0044).
Regarding claim 10 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in 1, wherein a press-fit connection of a sheet-metal antenna is arranged directly next to a pocket and/or directly next to a vertical part of the sheet-metal antenna guided in a slot (e.g., Fig. 1, at 188).
Regarding claim 15 Laird further discloses a motor vehicle having comprising the antenna module as claimed in claim 1 (e.g., Abstract).
Regarding claim 16 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 1 wherein the antenna module is a roof antenna module for a motor vehicle (e.g., Abstract).
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 6-7, 11-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laird in view of Aminzadeh et al., (US 2016/0104932), hereinafter Aminzadeh.
Regarding claim 6 Laird does not disclose the antenna module as claimed in 1, wherein the antenna module has a cap supporting the sheet-metal antenna.
Aminzadeh discloses wherein the antenna module has a cap (e.g., Fig. 2, at 112) supporting the sheet-metal antenna.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding the use of a cap in order to protect the antennas (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 7 Laird dopes not disclose wherein at least one sheet-metal antenna comprises at least one recess configured to engage one elevation of the cap (e.g., paragraph 0055).
Aminzadeh discloses wherein at least one sheet-metal antenna comprises at least one recess configured to engage one elevation of the cap (e.g., paragraph 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding securing of a cap in order to protect and secure the antennas (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 11 Laird does not disclose the antenna module of claim 6, wherein the cap is formed with the sheet-metal antennas for securing on a chassis comprising a printed circuit board.
Aminzadeh discloses wherein the cap is formed with the sheet-metal antennas for securing on a chassis (e.g., paragraph 0055) comprising a printed circuit board (e.g., paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding the use of a chassis and PCB in order to secure the in order to secure the cap (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 12 Laird does not disclose the antenna module as claimed claim 6, wherein the cap is formed with the sheet-metal antenna configured to secure on a printed circuit board, and is configured to secure on a chassis.
Aminzadeh discloses wherein the cap is formed with the sheet-metal antenna configured to secure on a printed circuit board (e.g., paragraphs 0055-0056), and is configured to secure on a chassis (e.g., paragraphs 0055-0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding the use of a chassis and PCB in order to secure the in order to secure the cap (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 13 Laird does not disclose the antenna module as claimed in claim 6, wherein when assembled there is disposed within the cap at least one of a printed circuit board, a further antenna, electronics, amplifiers and a controller.
Aminzadeh discloses wherein when assembled there is disposed within the cap at least one of a printed circuit board (e.g., paragraphs 0055-0056), a further antenna (e.g., paragraphs 0055-0056), electronics (e.g., paragraph 0049), amplifiers (e.g., paragraph 0049), and a controller (e.g., paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding the use of a PCBs and electronics in order to include the electronics necessary for matching, amplifying, and signal processing (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0049).
Regarding claim 14 Laird discloses sheet-metal antennas (e.g., Figs. 1-2, at 114 or 118).
Laird does not explicitly disclose the antenna module as claimed in claim 6, wherein the antenna module has an outer casing within which when the antenna module is assembled there are disposed the cap, and which when the antenna module is assembled, is adjacent to a roof of a motor vehicle.
Aminzadeh discloses wherein the antenna module has an outer casing within which when the antenna module is assembled there are disposed the cap (e.g., Fig. 2, at 112), and which when the antenna module is assembled, is adjacent to a roof of a motor vehicle (e.g., Abstract; Fig. 1, at 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding the use of an outer casing in order to help protect components of the antenna assembly (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 17 Laird as best understood does not disclose the antenna module as claimed in claim 6, wherein the cap has an indentation or recessed contour configured to be embedded in in each case one sheet-metal antenna.
Aminzadeh discloses wherein the cap has an indentation or recessed contour configured to be embedded in in each case one sheet-metal antenna (e.g., paragraphs 0055-0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by Laird in accordance with the teaching of Aminzadeh regarding in order to secure the cap (Aminzadeh, paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 18 Laird as best understood further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 7, wherein the engaging at least one of centers and protects from rattling (e.g., paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 19 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 11, wherein the securing on the chassis is with snap-action hooks configured to engage the cap with the chassis and/or the printed circuit board (e.g., paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 20 Laird further discloses the antenna module as claimed in claim 12, wherein securing on the chassis is with snap-action hooks configured to engage the cap with the chassis (e.g., paragraph 0052).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 8, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the cap has at least one slot for guiding a portion of a sheet-metal antenna.
Laird and Aminzadeh are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna module having at least one sheet metal antenna, one connecting member, and a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 9, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein the cap has one or more pockets, into which in each case one locking tab of the sheet-metal antenna is introducible.
Laird and Aminzadeh are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna module having at least one sheet metal antenna, one connecting member, and a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 10, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein a press-fit connection of a sheet-metal antenna is arranged directly next to a pocket, and/or directly next to a vertical part of the sheet-metal antenna guided in a slot.
Laird and Aminzadeh are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including an antenna module having at least one sheet metal antenna, one connecting member, and a printed circuit board (PCB).
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The International Search Report submitted by Applicant contains two additional references that appear to anticipate some of the claims. The Examiner highly suggests reviewing the ISR in order to help advance prosecution of the current application.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights