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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FR on 09/16/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2025, 04/22/2025 and 05/08/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Para [0199] cited “the projecting contact 71 is here close to the lateral surface 44 of the port” but fig. 45 shows the projecting contact 71 is far away from the lateral surface 44.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para [0189] cited “The longitudinal port 40, seen from the front in Figure 35, comprises two longitudinal surfaces 41, 42 facing each other, connected by two lateral surfaces 44, 45, here of substantially rounded shape. It has a length Ls, also the length of longitudinal surfaces 41, 42, and a height Hs. Wall 102 also has a non-traversing recess 45 which is not considered to be included in port 40” is contradicting with the first sentence stating the port 40 comprises surface 45 and the last sentence stating non-traversing recess 45 is not included in port 40. Moreover, reference number “45” is called 2 different names “lateral surface” and “non-traversing recess”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preambles of the claims should read “ The electronic device”.
Claims 3, 13 and 18: “the arm” should read “the electrically conductive arm”.
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.
In this instant case, the limitations of claims 2 and 17 have met the following three-prong test and will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 2:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for”; and
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function which is “applying a ground voltage to the first surface of the longitudinal port and applying the radio frequency signal to the second surface of the longitudinal port”.
Regarding claim 17:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language “for”; and
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function which is “applying a ground voltage to the first surface of the longitudinal port and applying the radio frequency signal to the second surface of the longitudinal port”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the
specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The limitation of claims 2 and 17 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in para [0188]-[0193] of the specification as performing the claimed function "applying a ground voltage to the first surface of the longitudinal port and applying the radio frequency signal to the second surface of the longitudinal port" could be “a radio frequency signal injector 50 comprising two electrodes 51, 52 resting on first and second surfaces 41 and 40, the connecting part 53, the compression part 55, contacts 541, 542”.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 recites the limitation " when the rear side of the chassis is opposite the front side of a similar device " in lines 21-22 which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the front side of a similar device” in the claim because only front side of a chassis of an electronic device previously recited. Moreover, the term “similar device” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar device” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Similar rejections would be applied to claim 16.
Claims 2-15 and 17-18 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 16 and are subsequently rejected.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "when the rear side of the chassis faces an electrically conductive surface” in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear this electrically conductive surface is the same or different to the electrically conductive surface recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Similar rejections would be applied to claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " approximately 30.6 mm within a nearest few millimeters" in lines 21-22 which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearest few” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “nearest few” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " for magnetically stacking the device with a similar device" in lines 3-4 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this similar device is different or the same to the similar device recited in claim 1. Moreover, the term “similar device” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar device” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " The device according to claim 2, comprising a radio frequency signal injector, the radio frequency signal injector comprising: - first and second substantially parallel flat electrodes connected by a connecting part, the first electrode resting on the first surface of the longitudinal port and the second electrode resting on the second surface of the longitudinal port, and - a compression part of a flexible and elastic material, arranged between the first and second electrodes and exerting on the first and second electrodes a spreading force which presses the first electrode against the first surface of the longitudinal port and presses the second electrode against the second surface of the longitudinal port" in lines 1-12 which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 2 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, therefore, the means to perform the function of claim 2 would be the radio frequency signal injector with its components (para [0188]-[0193]). Therefore, it is not clear if this radio frequency signal injector is the same or different to the means for applying a ground voltage to the first surface of the longitudinal port and applying the radio frequency signal to the second surface of the longitudinal port. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Claim 17 recites the limitation " the closed-slot antenna comprises a longitudinal port made in and through a sidewall of the chassis " in lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if this sidewall is the same or different to the side wall recited in claim 16. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the claim as best understood.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Cheng, US-7619577-B1, fig. 3 – a closed slot antenna and an open-slot parasitic antenna
Samardzija et al, US-20190190115-A1, fig. 16 – a closed slot antenna and an open-slot parasitic antenna
Liu, US-20170250475-A1, fig. 1 – a closed slot antenna and an open-slot parasitic antenna
Hill et al, US-20090256759-A1, fig. 12 – a closed slot antenna and an open-slot parasitic antenna
Zhang et al, US-20090153407-A1, fig. 8 – a closed slot antenna and an open-slot parasitic antenna
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon 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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights