DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to arguments and amendments filed 09/14/2026.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims recite the term “antenna drive point” several times. The terminology “antenna drive point” does not appear to be consistent with the typical definition of the term.
The normal definition of “antenna drive point” or, as is typically expressed, impedance driving point, is the amount of impedance required to match to the antenna to cause an electromagnetic reaction in the antenna. In the claims, “antenna drive point” is expressed in the context of a physical position relative to other locations on the antenna, which does not comport with the typical definition.
It is possible that applicant intends the term “antenna drive point” to imply the location where the transmission line of the antenna physically connects to an electrode, feed line, or circuit. However, when looking at the drawings, element 134 is intended to be the “antenna drive point”, which is not at a reasonable location of an electrode or electrical connection, as the drawings lack that specificity. Furthermore, relative to the other positions which are expressed, specifically “null point at a second position”, it is clear that this position is not a feed line, electrode, or physical electrical connection from the antenna to another electrical element on the package.
The specification does not clarify this confusion in the terminology, and as is such, examiner finds that the specification does not sufficiently enable the claims.
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claims recite the term “antenna drive point” several times. The terminology “antenna drive point” does not appear to be consistent with the typical definition of the term.
The normal definition of “antenna drive point” or, as is typically expressed, impedance driving point, is the amount of impedance required to match to the antenna to cause an electromagnetic reaction in the antenna. In the claims, “antenna drive point” is expressed in the context of a physical position relative to other locations on the antenna, which does not comport with the typical definition.
It is possible that applicant intends the term “antenna drive point” to imply the location where the transmission line of the antenna physically connects to an electrode, feed line, or circuit. However, when looking at the drawings, element 134 is intended to be the “antenna drive point”, which is not at a reasonable location of an electrode or electrical connection, as the drawings lack that specificity. Furthermore, relative to the other positions which are expressed, specifically “null point at a second position”, it is clear that this position is not a feed line, electrode, or physical electrical connection from the antenna to another electrical element on the package.
The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
As the only definitions known to one of ordinary skill in the art do not appear to apply to the specification or the claims, examiner is unable to generate a reasonable interpretation of the meaning of the applicant, as examiner is unclear as to the specific intent of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable under Schantz (2015/0318624).
As to claims 1-20: Zhao teaches an antenna comprising:
A far field patch antenna having a planar surface (paragraphs 0105-0107, planar arrangement shown in paragraph 0028), the far field patch antenna comprising:
various locations relative to the planar surface, including two null points relative to the planar surface (figures 3B showing multiple null points, seen in figure 4 as the intersection fo axes 405/409 and 407/411, paragraph 0108),
a PCB disposed relative to the planar surface of the far field patch antenna (paragraph 0305, circuit board arrangements shown in figures 16-19); and
a near field antenna disposed on the PCB, the near field antenna comprising various points (paragraphs 0105-0107),
the antenna is configured to switch between a first mode corresponding to the operation of the far field patch antenna and a second mode corresponding to operation of the near field antenna (paragraphs 0105-0107, expressing that the antenna can be switched between far and near field modes).
Other art considered pertinent but not relied upon:
Kerselaers (2020/0328505), which teaches a combination near-field and far-field antenna.
Gommé (10,978,791), which contains an antenna element that radiates at both near and far field modes.
Response to Amendment
3. Independent claims are amended to modify “on” to “relative to”.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 09/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification does sufficiently enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the term “antenna drive point”, and asserts that an antenna drive point drives the near field antenna and far field antenna to activation. Amendments reflect this, where applicant believes that the specification explains that the antenna drive point is a geometric location and not any further meaning.
Examiner notes that the quoted sections of the specification do not explain what an antenna drive point is or does, merely it expresses where this point is. As the common definition of an antenna drive point is a theoretical number based on the physical properties of a circuit and not a spatial point above circuitry, examiner still does not find that the specification sufficiently enables one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.
Applicant is allowed to act as their own lexicographer (MPEP 2111.01 IV), but in order to act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Examiner does not find that the applicant has properly redefined this term from its plain and normal meaning, merely expressed where the language in question lies in the diagrams. Therefore, examiner still finds the scope based on the amendments to be indefinite.
Applicant further presents arguments relating to prior art which are based on a different interpretation of the claim language that examiner does not agree with.
It is possible that an amendment would satisfy these issues which seem to be a language issue between the claims and the applicants’ intent. Examiner invites applicant to schedule an interview to clarify these amendments in order to expedite prosecution, instead of both parties repeating arguments through office actions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11AM-7:30PM. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MATTHEW MIKELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights