CTNF 18/931,920 CTNF 87111 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungman Hong et al., "Transparent and Flexible Antenna for Wearable Glasses Applications", IEEE TRANSACTIONS ONANTENNAS AND PROPAGATION, VOL.64, NO. 7, April 15, 2016 (“Hong” or “H”) (made of record by Applicant) in view of US 2024/0097318 (“Zhang” or “Z”) . 1: H teaches a wiring body (that of the antenna, ground, feed, and frame of fig 1a) comprising: a base board (the frame); a ground pattern (the ground) provided on the base board (as shown); and a conductor portion (that of the feed and antenna) including a first conductor pattern (the feed) and a second conductor pattern (the antenna) containing metal (as shown), wherein the ground pattern is a conductor pattern extending so as to form a planar surface (as shown), wherein the second conductor pattern is connected to the first conductor pattern (as shown), and wherein the conductor portion is able to be arranged in a bent state (abstract, fig. 1). Nevertheless, H fails to teach that the second conductor pattern is a mesh-like conductor pattern. However, Z teaches constructing antennas out of a conductive mesh in order to obtain a more transparent antenna (fig. 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to employ a conductive mesh as H’s antennas, in order to obtain a more transparent antenna. 2: H fails to teach that the sheet resistance of the second conductor pattern is 1 Ω/square or less. However, Z teaches that its mesh can have such resistance (fig 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to employ an antenna having such resistance in order to reduce energy loss and approach the case of an ideal conductor. 4: H fails to teach that the second conductor pattern is arranged inside a mesh-like trench of a resin layer provided on a substrate. However, Z teaches the same (fig 6). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide said feature. The motivation would have been to follow Z’s teachings on how to construct Z’s mesh. 5: H teaches a wiring body (that of the antenna, ground, feed, and frame of fig 1a) comprising: a base board (the frame); a ground pattern (the ground) provided on the base board (as shown); and a conductor portion (that of the feed and antenna) including a first conductor pattern (the feed) and a second conductor pattern (the antenna) containing metal (as shown), wherein the ground pattern is a conductor pattern extending so as to form a planar surface (as shown), wherein the second conductor pattern is connected to the first conductor pattern (as shown), and wherein the conductor portion is able to be arranged in a state where at least a part of the first conductor pattern and at least a part of the second conductor pattern extend in different directions (as shown in fig 1). Nevertheless, H fails to teach that the second conductor pattern is a mesh-like conductor pattern. However, Z teaches constructing antennas out of a conductive mesh in order to obtain a more transparent antenna (fig. 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to employ a conductive mesh as H’s antennas, in order to obtain a more transparent antenna. 6 and 12: The modified device discussed in regard to claims 1 and 5 would be smart glasses comprising (as shown in H): a pair of lens bodies (as shown fig 1 of H); temple arms arranged on both sides of the pair of lens bodies (as shown); and the wiring body according to claim 1 (as would be the case, given the proposed modification), wherein the second conductor pattern is disposed at the lens body (as would be the case) and the base board is disposed at the temple arm (as would be the case). 9, 15: H fails to teach that the number of second conductor patterns is two or more, and wherein at least one second conductor pattern is arranged on each of the lens body on a left-eye side and the lens body on a right-eye side. However, Z teaches using two antennas for the sake of implementing mimo operation (fig 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to replicated H’s antenna system on both of H’s lenses, in order to be able to implement mimo operation. 10, 16: The modified device discussed in regard to claims 1 and 5 would be such that the number of second conductor patterns is two or more (the pattern can be thought of as divided into any number of patterns), and wherein a plurality of second conductor patterns are arranged on either one of the lens body on a right-eye side and the lens body on a left- eye side (once divided, the resulting patterns would reside on a single lens). 11, 17: The modified device discussed in regard to claims 1 and 5 would be such that the extension direction of the plurality of second conductor patterns are different from each other (the division can be such that one extends to the left, while the other extends to the right) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 3, 7, 8, 13, 14 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRAHAM P SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1568. 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. /GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845 Application/Control Number: 18/931,920 Page 2 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 18/931,920 Page 3 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 18/931,920 Page 4 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 18/931,920 Page 5 Art Unit: 2845 Application/Control Number: 18/931,920 Page 6 Art Unit: 2845
Prosecution Insights