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 language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
In order to avoid the use of legal phraseology, the phrase “a locking means” in the last sentence of the abstract should be amended to “a locking mechanism”.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0012] and all other subsequent instances: the term “bold” should be amended to “bolt”;
[0024-0032] recite “an apparatus according to a first embodiment of the invention”. However, it is not clear from the specification whether the corresponding figures show the same embodiment of the invention. For example, the apparatus shown in Figs. 1-2 appears different from the apparatus shown in Figs. 3-5. Furthermore, the specification does not clearly identify the distinct embodiments of the invention. For example, the specification discloses: “FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 illustrate some embodiments of an apparatus 1 according to the invention” ([0080]); “FIG. 3 illustrates a first embodiment of an apparatus 1 ([0090]); “In such embodiments, as illustrated in FIG. 3 to FIG. 9”. The above citations suggest that different figures among Figs. 1-9 illustrate different embodiments of the invention. Therefore, the applicant must clearly indicate the distinct embodiments of the invention and address those in the Drawings description section of the Specification;
[0024-0034]: when reciting an apparatus of a specific embodiment which has been referred to already the phrasing should be amended accordingly – e.g., [0025] “an apparatus according to a first embodiment of the invention” should be amended to “the apparatus according to the first embodiment of the invention”, [0034] “an apparatus according to a second embodiment” should be amended to “the apparatus according to the second embodiment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (lines 5-6): “the antenna system” should be amended to “the planar antenna system”;
Claim 1 (line 14): “the orientation of the radiation of the antenna system” should be amended to “a radiation orientation of the antenna system”;
Claim 8 (line 1): “apparatus” should be amended to “apparatuses”;
Claim 9 (line 2): “an apparatus according to claim 1” should be amended to “the apparatus according to claim 1”;
Claim 10 (lines 1-2): “a planar antenna system of an apparatus according to claim 1” should be amended to “the planar antenna system of the apparatus according to claim 1”.
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of their dependence on claim 1. Claim 11 is objected to because of its dependence on claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 (line 7) recites: “an object fixing part designed to fix the apparatus to the object”.
Claim 1 (lines 8-9) recites: “an antenna fixing part designed to maintain the dielectric substrate of the planar antenna system into the apparatus”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 (line 1) recites “several apparatus”. The term “several” is indefinite. Furthermore, The Specification does not define a specific quantity associated with the term “several”. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are allowed.
Claim 8 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Upon conclusion of a comprehensive search of the pertinent prior art, the Office indicates that the claims are allowable.
Regarding claim 1, Tulloch (US 6657598 B2), Lin et al. (US 8794578 B2), and Hemmervall et al. (US 20150136920 A1) are cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a planar antenna system and a fixation system designed to fix the antenna system to an object. Tulloch (Figs. 1-2) discloses a planar antenna system (12 – Fig. 1) and a fixation system (14, 16, 20, 22, 232) designed to fix the antenna system to an object, wherein the fixation system comprises:
an object fixing part (14, 16) designed to fix the apparatus to the object,
an antenna fixing part (20, 232) designed to maintain the planar antenna system into the apparatus,
a tilting system (20, 22) designed to orient radiation of the planar antenna system towards a desired direction, and
a locking means (22) designed to lock the fixation system and the orientation of the radiation of the antenna system in the desired direction.
However, 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. In particular, none of the recited Prior Art references teaches or suggests the tilting system comprises a first axial rotation system, wherein the first axial rotation system comprises an external rigid hollow cylinder attached to the antenna fixing part and an internal rigid hollow cylinder attached to the object fixing part, wherein the locking means comprises a pressure element comprising a spur, and wherein the internal rigid hollow cylinder comprises an opening designed to let the spur pass through the opening and press a part of an interior surface of the external rigid hollow cylinder.
Conclusion
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
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights