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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandfield (US 20160181697) in view Edvardsson (US Pat. 6204817).
Regarding claim 1:
Grandfield discloses (in Figs. 3-5 and 7) an antenna assembly (400) comprising: a loop antenna (402); a feed line (510) to provide to the loop antenna (402) a signal having an operational frequency (Para. 0011, Lines 1-3); and a substrate support (defined by 404 and 406) in contact with the loop antenna (402), the substrate support (defined by 404 and 406) comprising a plurality of layers (404, 406) configured to generate an image current when an antenna current flows in the loop antenna (See Fig. 7; Para. 0044, Lines 1-2).
Grandfield is silent on that a plane of the loop antenna is located at a distance, approximately equal to a quarter of a wavelength of light at the operational frequency, from a plane of the image current.
Edvardsson discloses (in Fig. 15c) that a plane of the loop antenna (49) is located at a distance (d) from a plane of the image current (50).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the plane of the loop antenna located at a distance from a plane of the image current as taught by Edvardsson into the device of Grandfield for the benefit of improving the radiation performance (radiation resistance and bandwidth) by basically simplifying matching and bandwidth (Col. 16, Lines 43-55).
Regarding claim 2:
Grandfield discloses the plurality of layers (defined by 404 and 406) comprises: a conducting layer (404); and a first non-conducting layer (406) separating the loop antenna (402) from the conducting layer (404).
Regarding claim 3:
Grandfield discloses the feed line (510) is configured to provide, to the loop antenna (402), a signal having an operational frequency, and wherein the first non-conducting layer (406) comprises a material having a thickness (408) that is less than a wavelength of light in the material (Para. 0067, Lines 2-4), wherein the wavelength of light is determined at the operational frequency.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandfield (US 20160181697) in view Edvardsson (US Pat. 6204817) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Alexopulos et al. (US 20130201072).
Regarding claim 4:
Grandfield as modified are silent on that the plurality of layers further comprises a second non- conducting layer different from the first non-conducting layer and disposed between the first non-conducting layer and the loop antenna, a thickness of the second non-conducting layer being at least ten times less than a thickness of the first non-conducting layer.
Alexopulos et al. disclose (in Figs. 22 and 23) the plurality of layers (24, 26 and 28) further comprises a second non-conducting layer (the first substrate layer, 24) different from the first non- conducting layer (the second substrate layer, 24) and disposed between the first non-conducting layer (the second substrate layer, 24) and the loop antenna (30).
Alexopulos et al. do not explicitly disclose that a thickness of the second non-conducting layer being at least ten times less than a thickness of the first non-conducting layer, but Alexopulos et al. further disclose that the thicknesses of the substrate layers are tuning parameters for achieving desired RF responses e.g., frequencies (Para. 0075, Lines 1-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the design arrangement of the antenna device of Alexopulos et al. into the device of Grandfield as modified for operation at 900 MHz frequency band, a 1.8 MHz frequency band, a 2 GHz frequency band, a 2.4 GHz frequency band, 5 GHz frequency band, a 29 GHz frequency band, a 60 GHz frequency band, or some other frequency bands (Para. 0041, Lines 11-14).
Regarding claim 5:
Grandfield as modified are silent on that the first non-conducting layer comprises at least one of silicon.
Alexopulos et al. (in Figs. 3A-3C) disclose the first non-conducting layer (define by the substrate, 302) comprises at least one of silicon (Para. 0057, Lines 4-7).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the silicon as a material of choice as taught by Alexopulos et al. into the device of Grandfield as modified since good conductor having a low resistivity is preferred (Para. 0057, Lines 7-10).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grandfield (US 20160181697) in view Edvardsson (US Pat. 6204817) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Keller et al. (US 20030098814).
Regarding claims 6-7:
Grandfield as modified are silent on that the loop antenna has a rectangular shape with a circumference of the antenna not exceeding twice a wavelength of light in air, wherein the wavelength of light is determined at an operational frequency of the loop antenna as required by claim 6; and a loop antenna has an operational frequency between 30 GHz and 100 GHz as required by claim 7.
Keller et al. disclose the loop antenna has a rectangular shape (Para. 0016, Lines 5-8) with a circumference of the antenna not exceeding twice a wavelength of light in air (Para. 0016, Lines 12-13), wherein the wavelength of light is determined at an operational frequency of the loop antenna (Para. 0014, Lines 1-4); a loop antenna has an operational frequency between 30 GHz and 100 GHz (See Claims 65-67).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since antennas are sized and physically parameterized to achieve predetermined simulated and desired responses (Para. 0165, Lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 8:
Grandfield as modified are silent on that the loop antenna has an operational bandwidth that is at least 8 GHz.
However, as is known, the antenna structure is designed to have a desired impedance (e.g., 50 Ohms) at an operating frequency, a desired bandwidth centered at the desired operating frequency, and a desired length (e.g., 1/4 wavelength of the operating frequency for a monopole antenna, 1/2 wavelength of the operating frequency for a loop antenna etc.), therefore, it would have been a knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babakhani et al. (US 20090289869) in view of Sovero et al. (US 20130257670) and Lee et al. (US 20200161763).
Regarding claim 9:
Babakhani et al. disclose (in Figs. 3 and 5) an antenna assembly (500) comprising: a loop antenna (502) having an operational frequency between 50 GHz and 70 GHz (Para. 0007, Lines 4-8); and a substrate (defined by 506 and 530) supporting the loop antenna (502), the substrate (defined by 506 and 530) comprising a conducting layer (530) and a dielectric layer (506), wherein the dielectric layer (506) is disposed between the loop antenna (502) and the conducting layer (530), wherein a distance (defined by the thickness of 506) from the conducting layer (530) to the loop antenna (502), and wherein the conducting layer (530) extends at least across a width of the loop antenna (502)
Babakhani et al. are silent on that the distance from the conducting layer to the loop antenna is less than a first wavelength of light in the dielectric layer, wherein the first wavelength of light is determined at the operational frequency; and a processing device affixed to a first side of the substrate that is opposite to a second side of the substrate supporting the loop antenna.
Sovero et al. disclose the distance (C) from the conducting layer (172) to the loop antenna (156) is less than a first wavelength of light in the dielectric layer, wherein the first wavelength of light is determined at the operational frequency (Para. 0048, Lines 7-13; Para. 0050, Lines 19-21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the conducting layer to the loop antenna is less than a first wavelength of light in the dielectric layer, wherein the first wavelength of light is determined at the operational frequency as taught by Sovero et al. into the device of Babakhani et al. for the benefit of effectively blocking, reflecting, or otherwise directing EM radiation transmitted by or received by transducer (Para. 0049, Lines 9-11) for increased transmission power, and selective directional shaping of a resulting radiation pattern (Para. 0101, Lines 3-5).
Babakhani as modified are silent on that a processing device affixed to a first side of the substrate that is opposite to a second side of the substrate supporting the loop antenna.
Lee et al. disclose (in Fig. 2) a processing device (230) affixed to a first side (212) of the substrate (210) that is opposite to a second side (211) of the substrate (210) supporting the loop antenna (220).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to implement the processing device affixed to a first side of the substrate that is opposite to a second side of the substrate supporting the loop antenna as taught Lee into the modified device of Babakhani for the benefit of efficiently arranging the mmWave antenna module (Para. 0131, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10:
Babakhani et al. are silent on that further comprising: a passivation layer formed on the loop antenna and protecting the loop antenna from an environment.
Sovero et al. disclose further comprising: (in Fig. 1) a passivation layer (26) formed on the loop antenna (30) and protecting the loop antenna (30) from an environment (Para. 0038, Lines 1-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the passivation layer formed on the loop antenna as taught by Sovero et al. into the device of Babakhani et al. for the benefit of protecting the providing electrical insulation and physical protection for the electrical and electronic components in the device (Para. 0038, Lines 4-5).
Regarding claims 11 and 12:
Babakhani as modified are silent on that conductivity of the conducting layer is at least one million Siemens per meter and conductivity of the dielectric layer is at most one hundred Siemens per meter as required by claim 11; and a circumference the loop antenna is less than a second wavelength of light in air, wherein the second wavelength of light is determined at the operational frequency as required by claim 12.
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the distance or the height of the dielectric material and the electrical lengths are chosen and modified repeatedly until the properties of the loop antenna are acceptable.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20230061101) in view of Grandfield (US 20160181697).
Regarding claim 13:
Park et al. disclose (in Fig. 6) a system (300) for wireless communications, the system (300) comprising: a first antenna (312P) having an operational frequency between 50 GHz and 70 GHz (Para. 0003, Lines 4-13; Para. 0067, Lines 29-32): a first substrate support (314) for the first antenna (312P), the first substrate support (314) comprising a first conducting screen (315) and a dielectric layer (311), and a first radio (319) communicatively coupled to the first antenna (312P), the first radio (319) to support a first wireless communication link (WCL) with a second radio (329) coupled to a second antenna (3211AR).
Park et al. are silent on that the first antenna having a circumference that is less than twice a first wavelength of light, at the operational frequency, in air, wherein a distance from the first antenna to the first conducting screen is between 3λ/16 and λ/2, λ is a second wavelength of light, at the operational frequency, in the dielectric layer.
Grandfield discloses (in Figs. 2-5) the first antenna (200) having a circumference that is less than twice a first wavelength of light (Para. 0064, Lines 1-5, with the exclusion of the electrical discontinuity, 202), at the operational frequency, in air (Para. 0069, Lines 11-13), wherein a distance (306) from the first antenna (200) to the first conducting screen (300) is between 3λ/16 and λ/2, λ is a second wavelength of light, at the operational frequency, in the dielectric layer (Para. 0007, Lines 7-9; Para. 0069, Lines 6-9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the first antenna having a circumference that is less than twice a first wavelength of light, at the operational frequency, in air, wherein a distance from the first antenna to the first conducting screen is between 3λ/16 and λ/2, λ is a second wavelength of light, at the operational frequency, in the dielectric layer as taught by Grandfield into the device of Park et al. for the benefit of achieving a desired feed point impedance for wider bandwidth (Para. 0052, Lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 14:
Park et al. are silent on that an antenna matching network for the first antenna, the antenna matching network configured to support at least a 1 GB bandwidth of the first WCL.
Grandfield disclose an antenna matching network (524) for the first antenna (400), the antenna matching network (524) configured to support at least a wider bandwidth (Para. 0010, Lines 1-2; Para. 0070, Lines 1-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the antenna matching network for the first antenna as taught by Grandfield into the device of Park et al. for the benefit of tuning the antenna device over a wider bandwidth while maintaining sizable gain and usable feed point impedance (See Abstract; Para. 0052, Lines 1-8).
Claims 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20230061101) in view of Grandfield (US 20160181697) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Rofougaran (US 20080242342).
Regarding claim 15:
Park as modified are silent on further comprising: a third antenna; a second substrate support for the third antenna, the second substrate support comprising a second conducting screen; and a third radio communicatively coupled to the third antenna, the second radio to support a second WCL with a fourth radio, wherein the third antenna is at a distance from the first antenna that is at most ten times the distance from the first antenna to the second antenna.
Rofougaran discloses (in Fig. 30) further comprising: a third antenna (coupled to 1108); a second substrate support (Supporting 1108) for the third antenna (See Fig.), the second substrate support comprising a second conducting screen (defined by the ground connection for the antenna); and a third radio (1108) communicatively coupled to the third antenna (See Fig.)}, the second radio (1112) to support a second WCL with a fourth radio (1128), wherein the third antenna (coupled to 1108) is at a distance from the first antenna (coupled to 1116) that is at most ten times the distance from the first antenna (coupled to 1116) to the second antenna (coupled to 1112).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the multi-antenna device as taught by Rofougaran into the modified device of Park for the benefit of transmitting the communication signals in the form of electromagnetic radiation to a remote wireless transceiver (Para. 0088, Lines 12-13).
Regarding claim 16:
Park as modified are silent on that the first substrate support and the second substrate support are different portions of a same substrate layer, and wherein the first conducting screen and the second conducting screen are different portions of a same conducting layer.
Rofougaran discloses (in Figs. 3-5 and 17) the first substrate support (e.g., in Fig. 17; 562) and the second substrate support (570) are different portions of a same substrate layer (554), and wherein the first conducting screen (defined by area of 174 directly opposite 166) and the second conducting screen (defined by area of 174 directly opposite 170) are different portions of a same conducting layer (174 in Fig. 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the substrate supports and the conducting screens as on same substrate and same conducting layer as taught by Rofougaran into the modified device of Park for the benefit of isolating and shielding the electromagnetic waves transmitted through dielectric substrate at high frequency RF (Para. 0072, Lines 10-11).
Regarding claim 17:
Park as modified are silent on that the third antenna has the operational frequency between 50 GHz and 70 GHz.
Rofougaran discloses the third antenna has the operational frequency between 50 GHz and 70 GHz (Para. 0161, Lines 3-4; Para. 0173, Lines 3-4; Para. 0218, Lines 5-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size and shape the antenna given the electrical length corresponding to operational frequency between 50 GHz and 70 GHz as taught by Rofougaran into the modified device of Park for the benefit of transmitting wave to improve communications signal strength (Para. 0190, Lines 3- 4).
Regarding claims 18 and 19:
Park as modified are silent on that a first strength of transmitted power that is at least -20 dB at a first location, the first location being a location of the second antenna, and a second strength of transmitted power that is at most -35 dB at a second location, wherein the second location is at a distance, from the first antenna, that is at most ten times a distance from the first antenna to the first location as required by claim 18; and the distance from the first antenna to the first location is less than 10 mm as required by claim 19.
Rofougaran discloses (in Figs. 27-31) discloses that frequencies are dynamically assigned based at least in part to place a destination receiver (or at least the antenna of the receiver) of a receiver of a transceiver, that is disposed in a fixed position in relation to the transmitter, within a peak or null region according to whether a communication is intended (Para. 0162, Lines 2-6).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the antennas a disposed relative to each other when in communication to facilitate optimal performance especially since such knowledge is generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 20-22:
Park as modified are silent on further comprising: three or more antennas, wherein the three or more antennas comprise the first antenna; and three or more radios, wherein the three or more radios comprise the first radio as required by claim 20; wherein the three or more antennas and the three or more radios are part of a wireless testing bench or a wireless charging mat as required by claim 21; and at least one of the three or more antennas is a Wireless Gigabit (WiGig) antenna as required by claim 22.
Rofougaran discloses further comprising: (in Figs. 6, 9, 17, 19, 29-30, 32-33, 35-36 and 37) three or more antennas (e.g., See Fig. 20), wherein the three or more antennas comprise the first antenna (in device 1100 in Fig. 30); and three or more radios (1104, 1108, 1112, 1116), wherein the three or more radios (1104, 1108, 1112, 1116) comprise the first radio (in device 1100); wherein the three or more antennas and the three or more radios are part of a wireless testing bench (Para. 0087, Lines 7-11; Para. 0099, Lines 6-10); and wherein at least one of the three or more antennas is a Wireless Gigabit (WiGig) antenna (Para. 0101, Lines 2-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement three or more antennas with radios into a testing bench operation at millimeter wave as taught by Rofougaran into the modified device of Park for the benefit of transmitting the communication signals in the form of electromagnetic radiation to a remote wireless transceiver (Para. 0088, Lines 12-13).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20230061101) in view of Grandfield (US 20160181697) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Choudhury et al. (US 20090231225).
Regarding claims 23-24:
Park as modified are silent on further comprising a wireless network processor disposed on a side of the first substrate support that is opposite to a side in contact with the first antenna, the first antenna and the wireless network processor having at least partially overlapping footprints as required by claim 23; and wherein the first substrate is disposed on a wireless network processor as required by claim 24.
Choudhury et al. disclose (in Fig. 6) a wireless network processor (860) disposed on a side of the first substrate support (220) that is opposite to a side in contact with the first antenna (210), the first antenna (210) and the wireless network processor (360) having at least partially overlapping footprints (See Fig.); and wherein the first substrate (220) is disposed on a wireless network processor (360).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the wireless network processor as taught by Choudhury et al. into the modified Park for the benefit of including a mm-wave transceiver for processing signals received (Para. 0028, Lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 5712707893. 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
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845