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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 5/15/25. Claims 1-8 and 10 amended. Claims 1-10 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Lee US Publication No. 2007/0200706.
Re Claim 1, Lee discloses an electromagnetic signal-based data collection system including on the one hand a collector (100) provided with a first antenna (105) having a predetermined bandwidth (P9, transmission of information from an RFID tag exciter/reader system …) and on the other hand at least one remote electronic device (200) including a second antenna (205) having a second bandwidth that coincides with the first bandwidth for exchanging signals with the first antenna (P78-86; Figs. 8-11),
wherein the device includes a thermal protection (310 with 320 ) envelope (207; 210) surrounding at least the second antenna (205) and defining a cavity around the latter so that the second antenna radiates signals outside the protective envelope substantially in the second bandwidth (P80-86, the said top case member and the bottom case member are made of synthetic resins… this also can enhance the durability of the patch antenna in high temperature environments.
Re Claim 3, Lee discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein in which the thermal protection envelope (207) is made of a polymer resin (P82).
Re Claim 4, Lee discloses the system as claimed in claim 3,wherein in which the polymer resin has a thermal conductivity less than 1W/(m.K) (P53).
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(s) 2, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US Publication No. 2007/0200706 cited by applicant in view of Margalef US Patent No. 8, 638, 193, cited by applicant. .
Re Claim 2, Lee discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein in which a thickness of the protective envelope is determined as a function of a thermal conductivity of the thermal protection envelope (207; 210) and a surrounding temperature estimated during operation.
Margalef discloses wherein in which a thickness of the protective envelope is determined as a function of a thermal conductivity of the thermal protection envelope (207; 210) and a surrounding temperature estimated during operation (Column 14, Figs. 1-13, casing is designed to protect the antenna from a high temperature environment )
Given the teachings of Margalef it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Margalef with wherein in which a thickness of the protective envelope is determined as a function of a thermal conductivity of the thermal protection envelope (207; 210) and a surrounding temperature estimated during operation since it is conventional in the art to adapt the thickness of the casing on the basis of thermal properties of the casing and the temperature of the environment , (Column 14, lines 48-55)
Re Claim 5, Lee discloses the system as claimed in claim 3 , but fails to disclose wherein in which the polymer resin is a silicone resin or an epoxy resin.
Margalef discloses wherein in which the polymer resin is a silicone resin or an epoxy resin (Column 13 line 33-Column 14 line 45, column 17, lines 48-54).
Given the teachings of Margalef it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Margalef with the polymer resin is a silicone resin or an epoxy resin.
Doing so would provide a protective packaging made of fire-retardant material. (Column 13, line 45-48).
Re Claims 8-10, Lee discloses at least one remote device (P9, 53, P82) of a system as claimed in claim 1 .
Lee fails to disclose a vehicle including a propulsion engine disposed in an engine compartment the remote device being fixed in the engine compartment.
Margalef discloses a vehicle including a propulsion engine disposed in an engine compartment and at least one remote device of a system, the remote device being fixed in the engine compartment (Fig. 13, Column 13).
Margalef discloses wherein in which the aircraft is of the helicopter type (Fig. 13, Column 13).
Given the teachings of Margalef it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee with a vehicle including a propulsion engine disposed in an engine compartment and at least one remote device of a system, the remote device being fixed in the engine compartment since it is conventional in the art to use RFID tag in vehicle engines .
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US Publication No. 2007/0200706 cited by applicant in view of Mueller US Patent No. 8, 496, 184, cited by applicant.
Re Claim 6, Lee discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein in which the thermal protection envelope (210) is made of ceramic.
Mueller discloses wherein in which the thermal protection envelope (210) is made of ceramic (Column 5, lines 8-14) .
Given the teachings of Mueller it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Lee with wherein in which the thermal protection envelope (210) is made of ceramic.
Since it is common to use ceramic in radomes for antennas . Doing so would
Re Claim 7, Lee and Mueller discloses the system as claimed in claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein in which the ceramic is silicon nitride or a glass ceramic.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the ceramic with a silicon nitride ceramic , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a know material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use for high performance, featuring superior fracture toughness, heat resistance In re Leshin, 125 USPQ and is an obvious matter of design choice.
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
JP 7262564 B1 discloses RFID tag 11 covered with a ceramic layer made of ceramics, and the ceramics layer is further covered with an adhesive layer made of an adhesive. In this case, the adhesiveness, heat resistance, and rigidity of the RFID tag can be improved at the same time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights