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
Status of Application
This Office Action is a response to Applicant’s communication (or preliminary’s amendment) filed on 11/22/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). A certified copy of the priority documents received on 01/06/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
If applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.97 to disclose the same.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11/22/2024 are accepted as part of the formal application.
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 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1,
The recitation “the lower part of the first radiator coupling portion” in lines 9-10 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2,
The recitation “the outer circumferential surface of the first support” in lines 5-6 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the electrical length of the first radiator” in line 8 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 8,
The recitation “at least portion of the third radiator” in line 1 is considered vague because it’s confused with “at least portion of the third radiator” in line 1 of claim 7. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 15,
The recitation “a first antenna frame” in line 2 is considered vague because it’s confused with “a first antenna frame” in line 4 of claim 1. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the lower part of the fourth radiator coupling portion” in line 10 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 16,
The recitation “the outer circumferential surface of the fourth support” in lines 4-5 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
The recitation “the electrical length of the fourth radiator” in line 7 is considered indefinite because it does not have an antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
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 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (US 20140125531), hereinafter Kaneko.
Regarding claim 1,
Kaneko discloses an antenna (an antenna unit, Fig 1) for a vehicle comprising:
a base (a baseplate 3, Fig 1);
a substrate (a circuit board 6, Fig 1) disposed on an upper part of the base;
a first antenna frame (a plate shaped antenna 8, Fig 1) coupled to one side of an upper part of the substrate; and
a first radiator (a perpendicular substrate antenna 7, Fig 1) disposed on an upper part of the first antenna frame and in which slits (aperture parts 87, 88 and 89, Fig 2) are formed,
wherein the first antenna frame includes:
a first radiator coupling portion (a flat part 81, Fig 2) supporting a lower part of the first radiator; and
a plurality of supports (a plurality of supports including contact arms 93 and 94, and latching arms 96 and 97, Fig 4) extending downward from the lower part of the first radiator coupling portion and coupling to the substrate.
Kaneko does not explicitly teach the substrate on which feed lines are formed.
However, Kaneko teaches lead wire 11 connects the circuit board 6 (the substrate) to the plate shaped antenna 8, antenna pattern 18 and coil 13 (Fig 1; paragraph [0049]). This teaching is result effect in order to provide that the antenna pattern 18 and plate shaped antenna 8 function as a receiver antenna of AM broadcast radio waves, and the coil 13, antenna pattern 18 and plate shaped antenna 8 function as a receiver of FM broadcast radio waves (paragraph [0049]). Therefore, the lead wire acts as a feed line. Also, it’s well known in the art that feed lines are formed on a circuit board.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a substrate on which feed lines being formed in Kaneko, in order provide a vehicle antenna unit having increased antenna gain.
[AltContent: textbox (Kaneko (US 20140125531))]
PNG
media_image1.png
676
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Kaneko (US 20140125531))]
PNG
media_image2.png
436
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Kaneko (US 20140125531))]
PNG
media_image3.png
378
608
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-4, 7-9 and 11-19, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al (US 20140125531), hereinafter Kaneko, in view of Park et al (US 20230058867), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 2,
Kaneko as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Kaneko does not teach the plurality of supports include a first support, a second support and a third support, the second support is disposed in a front of the first support, the third support is disposed in a rear of the first support, the first support is equipped with a first radiator extension surrounding the outer circumferential surface of the first support and one end of the first radiator extension penetrates the first radiator coupling portion and is coupled to the first radiator to extend the electrical length of the first radiator, and the other end is coupled to the substrate.
However, Park teaches an antenna for a vehicle (a multi-band shark fin antenna for a vehicle, Fig 1) comprises a first antenna frame (a first antenna frame 300, Fig 1), wherein the first antenna frame includes a first support (a support 310, Fig 4), a second support (a support 320, Fig 4) and a third support (a support 330, Fig 4),
the second support is disposed in a front of the first support (Fig 4),
the third support is disposed in a rear of the first support (Fig 4),
the first support is equipped with a first radiator extension (an antenna coil 700, Fig 6) surrounding the outer circumferential surface of the first support (Fig 6) and
one end (an upwardly extending part 720, Fig 11) of the first radiator extension penetrates the first radiator coupling portion (Fig 11) and is coupled to the first radiator (a firs radiator 1100, Fig 11) to extend the electrical length of the first radiator, and the other end is coupled to the substrate (a substrate 200, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a plurality of supports including a first support, a second support and a third support, the second support being disposed in a front of the first support, the third support being disposed in a rear of the first support, the first support being equipped with a first radiator extension surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the first support and one end of a first radiator extension penetrates a first radiator coupling portion and being coupled to a first radiator to extend an electrical length of the first radiator, and the other end being coupled to a substrate in Kaneko as modified, as taught by Park, in order provide a multi-band shark fin antenna that can reduce manufacturing cost by not using a PCB as a radiator.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CP400)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (SLs)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (RAD)][AltContent: textbox (Park (US 20230058867))]
PNG
media_image4.png
416
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Park (US 20230058867))]
PNG
media_image5.png
446
559
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Park (US 20230058867))]
PNG
media_image6.png
400
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Park (US 20230058867))]
PNG
media_image7.png
380
645
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 2.
Park teaches a second radiator (a second radiator 1300, Fig 13) is coupled to the second support (Fig 14), and a third radiator (a third radiator 1500, Fig 16A) is coupled to the third support (Fig 16A).
Regarding claim 4,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 3.
Park teaches the second radiator has a single loop shape (Fig 14), and a protruding feeding point (a feed point 1310, Fig 14) in the lower part thereof is coupled to the substrate.
Regarding claim 7,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 3.
Park teaches at least portion of the third radiator is formed to be inclined with respect to the center line of the first support (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 8,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 7.
Park teaches at least portion of the third radiator is formed to exhibit an increasing inclination away from the center line of the first support as it descends from the top to the bottom (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 9,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 2.
Park teaches a second radiator fitting portion (a guide groove 1410, Fig 14) protruding forward, and the second radiator fitting portion includes a hook shape extending upward to be coupled with the second radiator and restricts a vertical movement of the second radiator (Fig 14).
Regarding claim 11,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 2.
Park teaches the second support includes a first support leg (a first support leg 1700, Fig 17) that is parallel to the substrate and extends in a left direction, and the third support includes a second support leg (a second support leg 1800, Fig 18) that is parallel to the substrate and extends in a right direction.
Regarding claim 12,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 11.
Park teaches flanges formed respectively at the end of the first support leg (Fig 17) and at the end of the second support leg are (Fig 18) seated in any one of flange grooves formed by recessing downward from an upper surface of the substrate, and thickness of the flanges and depression depth of the flange grooves are the same.
Regarding claim 13,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 12.
Park teaches first screws penetrating each of the flanges, each of the flange grooves, and one surface of the base and fastening them to each other; and second screws penetrating the substrate and one surface of the base and fastening them to each other, wherein the first screws and the second screws have same size, shape, and length (Fig 20).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C400)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S420)][AltContent: textbox (S430)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S410)][AltContent: textbox (Park (US 20230058867))]
PNG
media_image8.png
344
727
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 13.
Park teaches positions of the first screws and the second screws in a height direction are the same (Fig 20).
Regarding claim 15,
Kaneko as modified discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 1.
Kaneko does not teach a patch antenna disposed in front of a first antenna frame and coupled to the substrate; a second antenna frame disposed in front of the patch antenna and coupled to the substrate; and a fourth radiator disposed in an upper part of the second antenna frame and in which slits are formed, wherein the second antenna frame includes: a fourth radiator coupling portion supporting a lower part of the fourth radiator; and fourth to sixth supports being coupled to the substrate by being extended downward from the lower part of the fourth radiator coupling portion.
However, Park teaches an antenna for a vehicle (a multi-band shark fin antenna for a vehicle, Fig 1) comprises:
a patch antenna (a chip antenna 500, Fig 1) disposed in front of a first antenna frame (a first antenna frame 300, Fig 1) and coupled to the substrate (a substrate 200, Fig 1);
a second antenna frame (a second antenna frame 400, Fig 1) disposed in front of the patch antenna and coupled to the substrate; and
a fourth radiator (a radiator RAD, Fig 1; paragraph [0055]) disposed in an upper part of the second antenna frame and in which slits (slits SLs, Fig 1) are formed,
wherein the second antenna frame includes:
a fourth radiator coupling portion (a radiator coupling portion CP400, Fig 1) supporting a lower part of the fourth radiator (Fig 1); and
fourth to sixth supports (supports S410, S420, S430, Fig 20) being coupled to the substrate by being extended downward from the lower part of the fourth radiator coupling portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a patch antenna disposed in front of a first antenna frame and coupled to a substrate; a second antenna frame disposed in front of the patch antenna and coupled to the substrate; and a fourth radiator disposed in an upper part of the second antenna frame and in which slits being formed, wherein the second antenna frame includes a fourth radiator coupling portion supporting a lower part of the fourth radiator; and fourth to sixth supports being coupled to the substrate by being extended downward from a lower part of the fourth radiator coupling portion in Kaneko as modified, as taught by Park, in order provide a multi-band shark fin antenna that can reduce manufacturing cost by not using a PCB as a radiator.
Regarding claim 16,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 15.
Park teaches:
the fifth support is disposed in front of the fourth support (Fig 20),
the sixth support is disposed in rear of the fourth support (Fig 20),
the fourth support is equipped with a fourth radiator extension (an antenna coil C400, Fig 20), which surrounds the outer circumferential surface of the fourth support (Fig 20),
Park does not explicitly teach one end of the fourth radiator extension penetrates the fourth radiator coupling extension and elongates the electrical length of the fourth radiator by being connected to the fourth radiator, and the other end thereof is coupled to the substrate.
However, Park similarly teaches one end (an upwardly extending part 720, Fig 11) of the first radiator extension penetrates the first radiator coupling portion (Fig 11) and is coupled to the first radiator (a firs radiator 1100, Fig 11) to extend the electrical length of the first radiator, and the other end is coupled to the substrate (a substrate 200, Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one end of a fourth radiator extension penetrating a fourth radiator coupling extension and elongating an electrical length of a fourth radiator by being connected to the fourth radiator, and the other end thereof being coupled to a substrate in Kaneko as modified, in order provide a multi-band shark fin antenna that can reduce manufacturing cost by not using a PCB as a radiator.
Regarding claim 17,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 15.
Park does not explicitly teach the fifth support includes a third support leg that is parallel to the substrate and extends forward, and the sixth support includes a fourth support leg that is parallel to the substrate and extends to in a right direction.
However, Park similarly teaches the second support includes a first support leg (a first support leg 1700, Fig 17) that is parallel to the substrate and extends in a left direction, and the third support includes a second support leg (a second support leg 1800, Fig 18) that is parallel to the substrate and extends in a right direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a fifth support including a third support leg being parallel to a substrate and extending forward, and a sixth support including a fourth support leg being parallel to the substrate and extending to in a right direction in Kaneko as modified, in order provide a multi-band shark fin antenna that can reduce manufacturing cost by not using a PCB as a radiator.
Regarding claim 18,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 17.
Park does not explicitly teach flanges formed respectively at the end of the third support leg and at the end of the fourth support leg are structured to be seated to any one of flange grooves formed by recessing downward from the upper surface of the substrate, and the thickness of the flanges and the depression depth of the flange grooves are the same.
However, Park similarly teaches flanges formed respectively at the end of the first support leg (Fig 17) and at the end of the second support leg are (Fig 18) seated in any one of flange grooves formed by recessing downward from an upper surface of the substrate, and thickness of the flanges and depression depth of the flange grooves are the same.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use flanges formed respectively at an end of a third support leg and at an end of a fourth support leg being structured to be seated to any one of flange grooves formed by recessing downward from an upper surface of a substrate, and a thickness of the flanges and a depression depth of the flange grooves being the same in Kaneko as modified, in order provide a multi-band shark fin antenna that can reduce manufacturing cost by not using a PCB as a radiator.
Regarding claim 19,
Kaneko as modified in view of Park discloses the claimed invention, as discussed in claim 18.
Park first screws penetrating each of the flanges, each of the flange grooves, and one surface of the base and fastening them to each other; and second screws penetrating the substrate and one surface of the base and fastening them to each other, wherein the first screws and the second screws have the same size, shape, and length; and the positions of the first screws and the second screws in a height direction are the same (Fig 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Claims 5-6 and 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.
Regarding claim 5, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the third radiator is coupled to a plurality of protrusions protruding toward the rear disposed in the rear of the first antenna frame, wherein the plurality of protrusions include a first protrusion, a second protrusion, a third protrusion and a fourth protrusion arranged to be separated from each other from the top to the bottom of the first antenna frame along a height direction, and a distance from the center line of the first support to the second protrusion is longer than a distance from the center line of the first support to the first protrusion”.
Dependent claim 6 is considered to be allowable by virtue of its/their dependency/dependencies on claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “the second support further includes: a horizontal fixing portion elongated in a horizontal direction and is arranged to support the inner surface of the second radiator, thereby limiting a horizontal movement of the second radiator; and a substrate fixing portion protruding toward the substrate from the horizontal fixing portion and being coupled to the substrate, wherein the substrate fixing portion is coupled to the substrate using a first hook formed on one end of the substrate fixing portion”.
II. Claim 20 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding claim 20, prior art of record or most closely prior art fails to disclose, “fixing the first antenna frame to the substrate by coupling a first hook of the substrate fixing portion formed on the first antenna frame to the substrate; seating flanges formed in the first antenna frame in flange grooves formed by recessing downward from an upper surface of the substrate; and fastening first screws to penetrate each of the flanges, each of the flange grooves, and one surface of the base”. These features reflect the application’s invention and are not taught by the pertinent prior arts. There is no reason or suggestion in the prior art for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kaneko (US 20140125531) and Park (US 20230058867) to include features of claim 20.
.
Conclusion
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 Hai Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-7650. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dimary Lopez can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAI V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845