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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “a cable different from the cable”. While it is understood, it should be amended to “an additional cable different from the cable” just to allow for clarity so one can be recited as “the cable” while the other one is “the additional cable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yajima et al. (US 5670745, hereby referred as Yajima).
Regarding claim 1, Yajima (figs 2) teaches the following:
an antenna device (figs 2) comprising:
a housing (elements 75/77, figs 2);
an antenna portion (element 72, figs 2) housed in the housing;
a cable (element 80, figs 2) electrically connected to the antenna portion;
a waterproof pad (element 76, figs 2) surrounding at least a part of the antenna portion; and
a grommet (element 81, figs 2) through which the cable passes, wherein at least a part of the waterproof pad and at least a part of the grommet overlap each other (as shown in figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Yajima (figs 2) as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the waterproof pad (element 76, figs 2) and the grommet (element 81, figs 2) have a substantially flush surface pressed by the housing (as shown in figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 1, Yajima (figs 3-13) teaches the following:
an antenna device (figs 3-13) comprising:
a housing (elements 2 and 3, figs 3-13);
an antenna portion (element 5, figs 3-13) housed in the housing;
a cable (element 7, figs 3-13) electrically connected to the antenna portion;
a waterproof pad (element 4, figs 3-13) surrounding at least a part of the antenna portion; and
a grommet (elements 14/15/51, figs 3-13) through which the cable passes, wherein at least a part of the waterproof pad and at least a part of the grommet overlap each other (as shown in figs 3-13).
Regarding claim 3, Yajima (figs 3-13) as referred in claim 1 teaches the following:
wherein the waterproof pad (element 4, figs 3-13) defines a recess portion overlapping at least a part of the grommet (as shown in figs 3-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima et al. (US 5670745, hereby referred as Yajima) in view of Hirosawa et al. (WO 2016/093082, hereby referred as Hirosawa).
Regarding claim 4, Yajima as referred in claim 1 teaches the antenna device with the exception for the following:
wherein the waterproof pad allows a cable different from the cable to pass therethrough.
Hirosawa suggests the teachings of wherein the waterproof pad (elements 8 or 15, fig 23) allows a cable (element 29c, fig 23) different from the cable (element 14, fig 23) to pass therethrough.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the waterproof pad of Yajima to allow a cable different from the cable to pass therethrough as suggested by the teachings of Hirosawa in order to allow an additional cable such as a cable for a camera implemented in an vehicle antenna device such as the ones of Yajima and Hirosawa so a camera module can be implemented which “can be used as a drive record, a back view monitor, a rearview mirror, or the like” (Hirosawa).
Additional Comments
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (KR 20120061488) could also be used to reject claim 1. Various other cited references, such as the rejection provided in the Written Opinion of the ISA, could also be applied to the current claims. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
/AB SALAM ALKASSIM JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
