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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 21-22 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.
Claims 21 and 22 respectively reciting “wherein the radio frequency signal has a frequency of at least 24 GHz” are indefinite, since this limitation appears to contradict with the spec., e.g., Fig. 5 and ¶ [0053] of the printed publication disclosing “a signal in a 39 GHz [high] band” and “a signal in a 28 GHz [low] band”.
As such, scope of claims 21 and 22 cannot be ascertained.
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 1-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kaloi” (US 4291312).
Claim 1: Kaloi discloses a transmission line configured to transfer a radio frequency signal, the transmission line comprising:
a ground electrode 10 (Fig. 1);
a first line 18 disposed to face the ground electrode and constituting a microstrip line together with the ground electrode, wherein the radio frequency signal passes through the first line from an input end 20 to an output end 17 of the first line; and
a second line 15 facing the first line and disposed along the first line (see Fig. 1),
wherein the second line constitutes a resonator for the first line (col. 4, ll. 4-14), and
the first line is disposed between the second line and the ground electrode (see Fig. 1).
Claim 2: Kaloi teaches wherein a distance between the first line and the ground electrode is larger than a distance between the first line and the second line (see Fig. 1).
Claim 3: Kaloi fails to expressly teach wherein a distance between the first line and the second line is larger than a distance between the first line and the ground electrode.
However, in an alternate embodiment (Fig. 26), Kaloi suggests a modified distance between the first line 269 and the second line 261, and a modified distance between the first line and the ground electrode 262.
Nevertheless, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaloi’s invention such that a distance between the first line and the second line is larger than a distance between the first line and the ground electrode, in order to obtain improved radiation efficiency (col. 4, ll. 46-55)
Claim 16: Kaloi fails to expressly teach wherein a line width of the first line is larger than a line width of the second line.
However, in an alternate embodiment (Fig. 4), Kaloi suggests a line width of the first line 41 is larger than a line width of the second line 40.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaloi’s invention such that a line width of the first line is larger than a line width of the second line, in order to obtain improved radiation efficiency (col. 4, ll. 46-55).
Claim 17: Kaloi teaches wherein a line width of the second line is larger than a line width of the first line (see Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 18-20 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.
Claims 11-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, none of the prior art shows, teaches or fairly suggests the features of “a second feed line configured to transfer a second radio frequency signal to the second radiating electrode, wherein the second radiating electrode is disposed between the first radiating electrode and the ground electrode, a size of the second radiating electrode is larger than a size of the first radiating electrode, each of the first feed line and the second feed line includes a first line disposed to face the ground electrode and constituting a microstrip line together with the ground electrode, and a second line facing the first line and disposed along the first line, the second line constitutes a resonator for the first line, and the first line is disposed between the second line and the ground electrode.”
Claims 12-15 depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 11949171)
Adachi (US 6876328)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
