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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 (lines 3-4): “an XZ region without overlapping the antenna board” should be amended to “an XZ region not overlapping the antenna board”.
Claims 5-7 are included in the objection due to their dependence on claim 4.
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 1-7 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 1 (lines 13-14) recites: “the m antenna structures are each disposed in which the antenna board has a center line in the X direction”. The meaning of this limitation is not clear. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (e.g., Figs. 2A, 3, and 4A), this limitation is interpreted as: “the m antenna structures are each disposed such that a center line of the antenna board in the X direction is located right or left alternately with respect to a center line of the power supply control board in the X direction”.
Claims 2-7 inherit the indefiniteness of claim 1 and are subsequently rejected, as well.
Claim 2 (line 3) recites: “an interval P”. It is not clear whether the interval P recited here is the same or different from the interval P recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (Figs. 1B and 4B), this limitation is interpreted as: “two adjacent patch antenna elements each included in a corresponding one of two adjacent antenna structures among the m antenna structures are disposed in a Y direction at the interval P”.
Claim 4 (lines 3-4) recites: “the power supply control board … the antenna board”. It is not clear which of the power supply control board and the antenna board in the m antenna structures defined in claim 1 this limitation refers to. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (Fig. 5), this limitation is interpreted as: “wherein in each of the m antenna structures the power supply control board includes a first XZ region not overlapping the antenna board in the X direction, the first XZ region being equipped with …” (The amendment fist XZ region is included in order to distinguish from the XZ region in claim 5 – see claim 5 rejection below).
Claim 5 (lines 2-3) recites: “the power supply control board … the antenna board”. It is not clear which of the power supply control board and the antenna board in the m antenna structures defined in claim 1 this limitation refers to. Further, the claim (line 4) recites “the XZ region being equipped with”. It is not clear which XZ region is being referred to here since an XZ region is defined in claim 4, as well. For examination purposes, in view of the Specification (Fig. 5), this limitation is interpreted as: “wherein in each of the m antenna structures the power supply control board includes a second XZ region overlapping the antenna board in the X direction, the second XZ region being equipped with …” (The amendment second XZ region is included in order to distinguish from the XZ region in claim 4 – see claim 4 rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Shirokawa et al. (JP 2004179738 A) (Figs. 1 and 3) teaches array antenna structure comprising:
m antenna structures (24 – Fig. 3) disposed on an XY plane where m represents a number equal to or greater than 2,
each of the m antenna structures including:
n patch antenna elements (11 – Figs. 1 and 3) disposed at an interval P in an X direction where n represents a number equal to or greater than 2;
a power supply control board (15 – Fig. 1) having a thickness T, the power supply control board being disposed on an XZ plane; and
a connection member (13 – Fig. 1) extending in the X direction, the connection member connecting the antenna board and the power supply control board
Ichiki (JP 2011035733 A) (Fig. 4) teaches an antenna structure including:
an antenna board (110) including n antenna elements (303, 304) disposed at an interval P in an X direction where n represents a number equal to or greater than 2, the antenna board being disposed on the XY plane;
a power supply control board (130) having a thickness T, the power supply control board being disposed on an XZ plane; and
a connection member (191) extending in the X direction, the connection member connecting the antenna board and the power supply control board.
However, none of the prior art references cited teaches or suggests a connection member including an insulating resin extending in the X direction and a joint electrode provided on a surface of the insulating resin, wherein the m antenna structures are each disposed in which the antenna board has a center line in the X direction that is located right or left alternately with respect to a center line of the power supply control board in the X direction.
Therefore, the prior art, when taken alone or in combination, cannot be construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by Applicant.
Conclusion
The following cited prior art references in PTO-892 were found during the examiner's search, but were not relied upon for this office action: Naruse (US 11264732 B2) and Okajima et al. (US 11888227 B2). However, these references are still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights