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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 1, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 6, 7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 4, for clarification, the term “the outer region” should be replaced with “the outer arm region.”
In claim 2, ln. 5, for grammatical reasons, the language “and having, each” should be replaced with “and each.”
In claim 3, line 1, for clarification, the term “the outer arm” should be replaced with “the outer arm region.”
Claim 3 should depend on claim 2 to provide antecedent basis for the recited claim terms.
Claim 4 should depend on claim 3 to provide antecedent basis for the recited claim terms.
Claim 6 should depend on claim 3 to provide antecedent basis for the recited claim terms.
Claim 7 should depend on claim 2 to provide antecedent basis for the recited claim terms.
In claim 7, the spelling of the term “lengh” should be replaced with “length.”
Claim 9 should depend on claim 2 to provide antecedent basis for the recited claim terms.
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 2-9 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 2: The terms “inductive regions and capacitive regions” are unclear. The specification describes these elements as inductive structures and capacitive structures (para. [0031]), and the specification does not make clear the difference in scope between the claimed “region” and the disclosed “structure” thus rendering the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain.
Claims 3-9 include the same issue due to their dependency on claim 2, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,191,580.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue in the instant application overlap in scope with a claim in a potentially conflicting claim or claims of the reference patent, and one of ordinary skill in the art would, on reading the potentially conflicting patent, “at once envisage” the invention claimed in the examined application.
"In construing the claims of the reference patent or application, a determination is made as to whether a portion of the specification, including the drawings and claims, is directed to subject matter that is within the scope of a reference claim." See MPEP § 804 (II)(B)(1). In the reference patent, the scope of the invention defined by claim 7 encompasses the subject matter shown in figures 2C and 2D. Moreover, "situations where the claim in the application being examined (1) is directed to a species or sub-genus covered by a generic claim in a potentially conflicting patent or application, or (2) overlaps in scope with a claim in a potentially conflicting claim or claims of the patent or application but the potentially conflicting claims cannot be said to anticipate the examined claims … require an obviousness analysis unless one of ordinary skill in the art would, on reading the potentially conflicting patent or application, at once envisage the invention claimed in the examined application. See AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust, 764 F.3d 1366, 112 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2014)." See MPEP § 804 (II)(B)(2). Accordingly, the explicit disclosure in the reference patent, in figures 2C and 2D, of the features recited by pending claims 2-9 provide sufficient evidence for one of ordinary skill in the art to "at once envisage" every feature recited by the claims. Thus, the conflicting claim(s) of the reference patent anticipates claims 2-9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action, as presented below.
2. (Currently amended) A dipole for a multiband antenna having four dipole arms arranged in a cross pattern, each of the dipole arms comprising:
an outer arm region having alternating inductive structures and capacitive structures; and
two high gain wings disposed at an inner end of the outer arm region, the two high gain wings defining a gap that is colinear with the outer arm region and
3. (Currently amended) The dipole of claim [[1]]2, wherein the outer arm region comprises:
a first inductive structure closest to the high gain wings;
a first capacitive structure adjacent to the first inductive structure;
a second inductive structure adjacent to the first capacitive structure; and
a second capacitive structure adjacent to the second inductive structure.
4. (Currently amended) The dipole of claim [[2]]3, wherein the first capacitive structure comprises a width of 8mm.
6. (Currently amended) The dipole of claim [[2]]3, wherein the first inductive structure, the first capacitive structure, the second inductive structure, and the second capacitive structure, each comprise:
a trace that comprises a trace width of 0.4mm; and
a trace gap that comprises a gap width of 0.4mm.
7. (Currently amended) The dipole of claim [[1]]2, wherein each dipole arm comprises a length of 77mm.
9. (Currently amended) The dipole of claim [[1]]2, wherein each dipole arm comprises a conductive layer that is disposed on a PCB (Printed Circuit Board) substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT KARACSONY whose telephone number is (571)270-1268. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (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 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.
/Robert Karacsony/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights