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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 9, “The antenna assembly) of claim 8” should read “The antenna assembly of claim 8”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the remaining components" in claims 15 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination the examiner interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230048585 (reference provided by the applicant in the IDS) by Rafal Glogowski et al. (hereinafter Glogowski).
Regarding claim 1, Glogowski teaches: An antenna assembly (fig. 2 [1]) comprising:
at least three tapered slot antennas (fig. 1 [5]);
wherein each of the tapered slot antennas comprises a plate-shaped conductor (fig. 1 [6]) and a tapered slot (fig. 1 [7]) extending in the plate-shaped conductor and extending along a slot direction (¶ 0041, fig. 1);
wherein the slot direction of each of the tapered slot antennas is substantially oriented towards a center point of the antenna assembly (The tapered slots 7 are extending horizontally with respect to the radiator center 8 in an outward direction ¶ 0041, fig. 1 [5-8]);
wherein the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas tapers towards the center point (fig. 1 [5-8]); and
wherein the slot direction of each of the tapered slot antennas are distributed with respect to a circumference extending around the center point (fig. 1 [5-8]).
Regarding claim 2, Glogowski teaches: wherein each of the tapered slot has a widest slot width (fig. 1 [7]); and wherein widest slot widths of neighboring tapered slot antennas are directly adjacent to one another (fig. 1 [5-7]).
Regarding claim 5, Glogowski teaches: wherein the plate-shaped conductor of each of the at least three tapered slot antennas are one of galvanically and electromagnetically coupled (they are galvanically coupled, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Glogowski teaches: wherein the plate-shaped conductors (fig. 1 [6]) of the at least three tapered slot antennas are formed by a common conductor (elements (6) which are made of thick metal ¶ 0012, fig. 1 [5-6]).
Regarding claim 10, Glogowski teaches: The antenna assembly comprises four to one hundred slot antennas (3 to 6 antennas arranged ¶ 0012).
Regarding claim 11, Glogowski teaches: wherein the tapered slot is delimited by convex curved edges of the respective plate-shaped conductor (antennas arranged ¶ 0012, fig. 1 [5-7]).
Regarding claim 12, Glogowski teaches: wherein the slot length is measured as a distance between two opposite ends of the tapered slot (see the slots length figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Glogowski teaches: A roof assembly for a vehicle (fig. 1-2), comprising:
a carrier layer (fig. 1 [13]) and at least one antenna assembly (fig. 1 [1]);
wherein the antenna assembly comprises of at least three tapered slot antennas (fig. 1 [5]);
wherein each of the tapered slot antennas comprises a plate-shaped conductor (fig. 1 [6]) and a tapered slot (fig. 1 [7]) extending in the plate-shaped conductor and extending along a slot direction (¶ 0041, fig. 1)
wherein the slot direction of each of the tapered slot antennas is substantially oriented towards a center point of the antenna assembly (The tapered slots 7 are extending horizontally with respect to the radiator center 8 in an outward direction ¶ 0041, fig. 1 [5-8]);
wherein the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas tapers towards the center point (fig. 1 [5-8]); and
wherein the slot direction of each of the tapered slot antennas are distributed with respect to a circumference extending around the center point (fig. 1 [5-8]); and
wherein at least one antenna assembly is arranged on the carrier layer (fig. 1 [1, 13]).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Glogowski teaches: wherein the feeding assembly comprises a feeding line, and wherein the feeding line protrudes from the remaining components of the feeding assembly (fig. 1 [14]).
Regarding claim 20, Glogowski teaches: A vehicle (trains ¶ 0008) comprising an antenna assembly (fig. 1-2 [1]), wherein the antenna assembly comprises:
at least three tapered slot antennas (fig. 1 [5]);
wherein each of the tapered slot antennas comprises a plate-shaped conductor (fig. 1 [6]) and a tapered slot (fig. 1 [7]) extending in the plate-shaped conductor and extending along a slot direction (¶ 0041, fig. 1);
wherein the slot direction of each of the tapered slot antennas is substantially oriented towards a center point of the antenna assembly (The tapered slots 7 are extending horizontally with respect to the radiator center 8 in an outward direction ¶ 0041, fig. 1 [5-8]);
wherein the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas tapers towards the center point (fig. 1 [5-8]); and
wherein the slot direction of each of the tapered slot antennas are distributed with respect to a circumference extending around the center point (fig. 1 [5-8]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of CN 114725669 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Bin-wen Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 3, Glogowski teaches: wherein each of the tapered slot has a widest slot width (fig. 1 [7]).
Glogowski does not explicitly teach the widest slot width corresponds to 0.05 times to 0.15 times the largest wavelength of a bandwidth of the antenna assembly.
However, Wang teaches the widest slot width corresponds to 0.05 times to 0.15 times the largest wavelength of a bandwidth of the antenna assembly (less than 0.2 times the wavelength ¶ 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to adjust the widest slot to a range between 0.05 and 0.15 times the largest wavelength as taught by Wang in the antenna assembly of Glogowski, 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would achieve the desired radiation characteristics.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of CN 109216893 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Geng Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 4, Glogowski teaches: wherein each of the tapered slot has a slot length (fig. 1 [7]).
Glogowski does not explicitly teach the slot length corresponds to 0.1 times to 0.2 times the largest wavelength of a bandwidth of the antenna assembly.
However, Zhang teaches the slot length corresponds to 0.1 times to 0.2 times the largest wavelength of a bandwidth of the antenna assembly (0.2-0.3 times the wavelength ¶ 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to adjust the slot length to a range between 0.1 and 0.2 times the largest wavelength as taught by Zhang in the antenna assembly of Glogowski, 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would achieve the desired radiation characteristics.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of CN 109378589 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Jun-gang Miao et al. (hereinafter Miao).
Regarding claim 7, Glogowski does not explicitly teach a largest radius of the common conductor corresponds to 0.15 times to 0.35 times the largest wavelength of a bandwidth of the antenna assembly.
However, Miao teaches a largest radius of the common conductor corresponds to 0.15 times to 0.35 times the largest wavelength of a bandwidth of the antenna assembly (a radius of 0.175 ¶ 0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to adjust the largest radius of the common conductor to a range between 0.15 and 0.35 times the largest wavelength as taught by Miao in the antenna assembly of Glogowski, 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Doing so would achieve the desired radiation characteristics.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of US 20250158288 by Satish Kumar Sharma et al. (hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim 8, Glogowski does not explicitly teach wherein at least one strip-shaped conductor element is arranged at least partially in at least one of the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas.
However, Sharma teaches wherein at least one strip-shaped conductor element (fig. 1A-1B [20]) is arranged at least partially in at least one of the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas (fig. 1A-1B [18a-18b]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include at least one strip-shaped conductor element arranged at least partially in at least one of the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas as taught by Sharma in the antenna assembly of Glogowski for the benefit of tuning to the desired radiation characteristics.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of Sharma and in further view of CN 114188709 A (see attached translation for the following citation) by Jing-jing Wang et al. (hereinafter Jing-jing).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Glogowski and Sharma, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein a group comprising a plurality of strip-shaped conductor elements is arranged at least partially in at least one of the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas adjacent to a wide end of an associated slot.
However, Jing-jing teaches wherein a group comprising a plurality of strip-shaped conductor elements is arranged at least partially in at least one of the tapered slot of each of the tapered slot antennas adjacent to a wide end of an associated slot (multiple metal strips are loaded in the middle of the opening slot ¶ 0075, fig. 3 [7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the plurality of strip-shapes conductor elements as taught by Sharma in the antenna assembly of Glogowski and Sharma for the benefit of improving the directivity of the antenna (Jing-jing, ¶ 0075).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of Sharma and in further view of US 20250007170 by Zhenyu Jia et al. (hereinafter Jia).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Glogowski and Sharma, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the strip-shaped conductor comprises one of a partially transparent material, a translucent material, and a mesh material.
However, Jia teaches wherein the strip-shaped conductor comprises one of a partially transparent material, a translucent material, and a mesh material (transparent conductive material ¶ 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a transparent conductive material as taught by Jia in the antenna assembly of Glogowski and Sharma for the benefit of making the wiring in the antenna structure easier (Jia, ¶ 0050).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of US 20160344104 by Mikko Juhani Junttila et al. (hereinafter Junttila).
Regarding claim 15, Glogowski teaches: further comprising a feeding assembly (fig. 1 [14]) for the antenna assembly, wherein the feeding assembly and the antenna assembly are offset in a direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the carrier layer (The feeding assembly (14) has a section perpendicular to the carrier layer (13), while the tapered slots (7) of the antenna assembly (1) are extending perpendicular to the printed circuit board (13) by a certain thickness (t), fig. 1, 4).
Glogowski does not explicitly teach and, wherein the feeding assembly and the antenna assembly are capacitively coupled.
However, Junttila teaches and, wherein the feeding assembly and the antenna assembly are capacitively coupled (feed element 104 is capacitively coupled with the antenna radiator(s) ¶ 0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a feeding assembly capacitively coupled as taught by Junttila in the antenna assembly of Glogowski for the benefit of enabling the antenna to radiate by providing the signal through air-interface (Junttila, ¶ 0033).
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glogowski in view of US 7009572 by Robert S. Homer et al. (hereinafter Homer).
Regarding claim 19, Glogowski teaches: further comprising one of a first cover layer arranged on a first side of the carrier layer and a second cover layer (see second cover layer in annotated Fig 2 below) arranged on a second side of the carrier layer (fig. 2 [22]).
PNG
media_image1.png
481
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Glogowski does not explicitly teach wherein one of the first cover layer and the second cover layer comprises a glass material.
However, Homer teaches wherein one of the first cover layer and the second cover layer comprises a glass material (glass material, col 6, ll. 43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the glass material for the first and second cover layer as taught by Homer with the antenna assembly of Glogowski for the benefit of enclosing and protecting the antenna assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 is 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 dependent claim 16, the pertinent prior art, when taken alone or, in combination, cannot be reasonably construed as adequately teaching or suggesting the combination of elements ant features of "wherein the feeding assembly comprises a first feeding sub-assembly capacitively coupled with a first set of tapered slot antennas of the antenna assembly and a second feeding sub-assembly capacitively coupled with a second set of tapered slot antennas of the antenna assembly, and wherein the first feeding sub-assembly and the second feeding sub-assembly are offset in a direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the carrier layer." as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Claim 17 depend therefrom and is included in the allowance subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, ET.
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 E. 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/JOSE A. MIRANDA GONZALEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845