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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 (line 4): “the first metal subsegment extends from the first ground plane” should read “the first metal subsegment extends from the second ground plane”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to due to its dependency.
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 1-24 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 “the first antenna including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the second portion of the first antenna having a longer electrical path from the first ground plane”. This limitation is unclear for the following reasons.
Claim 1 does not specify either the first or the second portion being attached to the first ground plane, so it is not clear how either the first or the second portion can have an electrical path from the first ground plane. Also, it is not clear which element of the limitation has a longer electrical path. What is the length of the electrical path being compared with? Clarification is required.
Claim 1 defines the first antenna as including a first portion and a second portion, and the first portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the second portion. Dependent claim 2 states that the first metal segment forms the first antenna, and dependent claim 4 states that the first metal segment includes a first metal subsegment and a second metal subsegment. Claim 4 further recites “the second metal subsegment extends from an end of the first metal subsegment and is angled relative to the first metal subsegment”. The relationship between portions, segments and subsegments is therefore not clear.
For examination purposes, the above limitation is interpreted as “the first antenna including a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the second portion of the first antenna
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the first metal segment has opposite first and second ends”. The first metal segment forms the first antenna. However, claim 1 recites “the first antenna includes a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the second portion”. It is not clear how the first and second ends of the first metal segment can be opposite one another if the first portion extends at, for example, 90 degrees from the end of the second portion. Clarification is required.
For examination purposes, the limitation of claim 12 is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the second portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the first portion of the first loop antenna having a longer electrical path from the first ground plane”. However, as for claim 1 above, the claim does not specify either the first or the second portion being attached to the first ground plane, so it is not clear how either the first or the second portion can have an electrical path from the first ground plane. Also, it is not clear which element of the limitation has a longer electrical path. What is the length of the electrical path being compared with? Clarification is required.
For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the second portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the first portion of the first loop antenna”.
Claim 22 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 21.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein the second portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the first portion of the loop antenna having a longer electrical path from the first ground plane”. However, as for claim 1 above, the claim does not specify either the first or the second portion being attached to the first ground plane, so it is not clear how either the first or the second portion can have an electrical path from the first ground plane. Also, it is not clear which element of the limitation has a longer electrical path. What is the length of the electrical path being compared with? Clarification is required.
For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as “wherein the second portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the first portion of the loop antenna”.
Claim 24 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 23.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard in view of Fujii (US 2007/0096992 – of record).
Claim 1: Girard discloses (fig. 3 below) “an apparatus (antenna 300) comprising:
an integrated circuit (communication circuit 210; Fig. 2); a first metal layer including a first ground plane (¶42, ground plane 325; ¶31, “A printed circuit board structure is described in conjunction with the antenna. In the printed circuit board structure, four copper surfaces, or layers, are sandwiched around three material regions. ”) and a first antenna (conductive elements 305 and 310) coupled to the integrated circuit (communication circuit 210 of Fig. 2), the first antenna being in a first region, the first region being external to the integrated circuit (Lines 3-4, ¶41, “Antenna 300 may be used as part of communication device … 200”; communication device 200 is shown in Fig. 2, and antenna 220, which can be antenna 300, is shown being in a first region that is external to the communication circuit 210), the first antenna including a first portion (310) and a second portion (305), wherein the first portion (305) extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the second portion (310) of the first antenna;
a second metal layer (306, 311 and 326) including a second ground plane (¶42, “ground plane 326”) and a second antenna (conductive elements 306 and 311), the second antenna in a second region external to the integrated circuit (see Fig. 2 where antenna 220, which can be antenna 300, is shown being in a second region that is external to the communication circuit 210), the second antenna including a third portion (306) that at least partially overlaps with the first portion (305) and a fourth portion (311) that at least partially overlaps with the second portion (310);
a substrate between the first and second metal layers (¶42, “The elements 305 and 305, and 310 and 311 are connected together using vias 330 a-n. The ground planes 325 and 326 are connected together using vias 335 a-n. The physical area between elements 305 and 306, 310 and 311, and 325 and 326 is occupied by material 340”), in which the substrate (340) and the first and second metal layers form a laminate (¶44, material 340, 345 and 350 is comprised of printed circuit board material”); and
a through-via (vias 330) in the substrate (¶46, “vias 330 pass through material 340”) that couples between the first (310) and second antennas (“The elements 305 and 306, and 310 and 311 are connected together using vias 330”, lines 7-8 of ¶42)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
386
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Girard does not explicitly disclose “and the second antenna having a different frequency response from the first antenna”.
Fujii teaches (fig. 1) first and second antennas (11-1, 11-2) comprising first and second portions. Fujii also teaches (¶42) “the lengths of the radiating elements 11-1 and 11-2 are different from each other. When the lengths of the two radiating elements are set to be slightly different from each other, the frequency characteristics are slightly different from each other”). Fujii therefore teaches “and the second antenna having a different frequency response from the first antenna”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Fujii to the apparatus of Girard, wherein the second antenna has a different frequency response from the first antenna. Doing so increases the bandwidth of the apparatus (¶42 of Fujii).
Claim 2: The modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Girard discloses (figs. 2 & 3) “wherein: the first metal layer includes a first metal segment (305, 310) spaced from the integrated circuit (210) by a first area (see fig. 2 below – the integrated circuit 210 is spaced apart from the antenna 300); the second metal layer includes a second metal segment (306, 311) spaced from the integrated circuit (210) by a second area; the first metal (305, 310) segment forms the first antenna; the second metal segment (306, 311) forms the second antenna; and the through-via (one of vias 330) extends to or through the first and second metal segments”.
PNG
media_image2.png
221
393
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Girard discloses (fig. 3) “the first metal segment (305, 310) includes a first metal subsegment (310) and a second metal subsegment (305); the first metal subsegment (310) extends from the first ground plane (325); the second metal subsegment (305) extends from an end of the first metal subsegment (310) and is angled relative to the first metal subsegment (310); the second metal subsegment (305) has an end detached from the first ground plane (325); and the through-via (330) extends to or through the second metal subsegment (305) (¶42, “The elements 305 and 305, and 310 and 311 are connected together using vias 330 a-n”) and is more proximate to the end of the second metal subsegment (305) than to the first metal subsegment (305)”.
Claim 5: The modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 4.
Girard discloses “wherein: the second metal segment (306, 311) includes a third metal subsegment (311) and a fourth metal subsegment (306); the third metal subsegment (311) extends from the second ground plane (326); the fourth metal subsegment (306) extends from an end of the third metal subsegment (311) and is angled relative to the third metal subsegment; the fourth metal subsegment (306) has an end detached from the second ground plane (326); and the through-via (330) extends to or through the fourth metal subsegment (306) and is more proximate to the end of the fourth metal subsegment than to the third metal subsegment (311)”.
Claim 14: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Girard teaches “wherein: the second metal segment (306, 311) includes a first metal subsegment (305) and a second metal subsegment (311); the first metal subsegment (305) extends from the second ground plane (326) and has an end detached from the second ground plane (326); the second metal subsegment (311) extends from and is angled relative to the first metal subsegment; the second metal subsegment (311) is more proximate to the second ground plane (326) than the end of the first metal subsegment (305); and the through-via (330) extends to or through the second metal subsegment (311) and is more proximate to an end of the second metal subsegment (311) opposing the first metal subsegment (305) than the first metal subsegment”.
Claim 15: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 14.
Girard teaches “wherein the second metal segment is part of an inverted-F antenna (¶43, “Antenna 300 describes an exemplary inverted f antenna design incorporated into a printed circuit inside a communication device.”)”.
Claim 19: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Girard discloses “wherein the substrate (340) is part of a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶44, material 340, 345 and 350 is comprised of printed circuit board material”)”.
Claim 20: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Girard does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first metal layer is part of a first PCB, and the second metal layer is part of a second PCB”. However, Girard does disclose a multilayer printed circuit board (abstract).
Fujii teaches “a plurality of antennas may be formed in the same way on different PCBs”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Fujii to the apparatus of Girard in view of Fujii, wherein the first metal layer is part of a first PCB, and the second metal layer is part of a second PCB. Doing so provides increased durability and enhances signal integrity by providing dedicated ground planes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard in view of Fujii, and further in view of Jansen (US 2006/0238420 – of record).
Claim 12: The modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
As best understood, Girard discloses (fig. 3) “wherein the first metal segment (305, 310) has opposite first and second ends, and the first end is detached from the first ground plane (325)”.
Girard does not disclose “the second end is detached from the first ground plane”.
However, Jansen teaches (fig. 3 below) stacked antennas formed on a multilayer PCB. The antennas are connected by vias (47, 52). Figure 3 shows a first conductive region (antenna 42) having an F-shape, and lower layers having I-shaped regions (43) which have first and second ends detached from ground planes (41b-h). Para. [0031] of Jansen states “It will be appreciated that many modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment. For example, the I-shaped regions could be replaced with L-shaped regions which match the “upright” and upper arm parts of the F-shaped region or further F-shaped regions”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first metal segment (305, 310) of Girard could have both first and second ends detached from a ground plane, as taught by Jansen.
PNG
media_image3.png
431
345
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Jansen to the apparatus of Girard in view of Fujii, wherein the second end is detached from the first ground plane. Doing so provides a specific clearance area to prevent signal loss.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard in view of Fujii and Jansen, and further in view of Wolf (US 2017/0244152– of record).
Claim 13: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 12.
Girard does not disclose “wherein at least one of the first metal segment or the second metal segment includes a meander metal segment”.
Wolf teaches (fig. 4 and ¶52, lines 3-8), “in this embodiment, radiator 410 has a larger length than radiator 110: unutilized PCB 100 space is used to increase the length of the radiator 410 in order for the radiator 410 to resonate at an even lower center frequency in comparison to that of radiator 110.”
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Wolf and make the apparatus of Girard in view of Fujii and Jansen wherein at least one of the first metal segment or the second metal segment includes a meander metal segment. Doing so increases the length of the first or second metal segments so that they can resonate at a lower frequency, while at the same time fitting the antenna into a small space (¶2 of Wolf).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard in view of Fujii, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US 2006/0114159 – of record; hereinafter Yoshikawa).
Claim 16: The modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Girard does not explicitly disclose “further comprising an impedance matching circuit coupled between the integrated circuit and the first metal segment”.
Yoshikawa (fig. 1, ¶13) teaches “an impedance matching circuit coupled between the integrated circuit (radio communication circuit 20) and the first metal segment (antenna element A1)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yoshikawa to the apparatus of Girard in view of Fujii, further comprising an impedance matching circuit coupled between the integrated circuit and the first metal segment. Doing so maximizes power transfer between the integrated circuit and the antenna and also mitigates losses in antenna gain and amplitude.
Claim 17: The modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 16.
Girard does not disclose “wherein the impedance matching circuit includes a capacitor coupled between the integrated circuit and the first metal segment”.
Yoshikawa teaches (fig. 1 and ¶93) “wherein the impedance matching circuit includes a capacitor (C1) coupled between the integrated circuit (radio communication circuit 20) and the first metal segment (antenna element A1)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yoshikawa to the apparatus of Girard in view of Fujii, wherein the impedance matching circuit includes a capacitor coupled between the integrated circuit and the first metal segment. Doing so maximizes power transfer between the integrated circuit and the antenna and also mitigates losses in antenna gain and amplitude.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girard in view of Fujii, and further in view of Markish (US 2014/0253382 – of record).
Claim 18: the modified Girard teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Girard does not disclose “wherein the integrated circuit includes a package coated with a metal layer”.
Markish teaches “wherein the integrated circuit includes a package coated with a metal layer (¶32, “discrete electronic components 450 which are packaged inside a metal shield”)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Markish to the apparatus of Girard in view of Fujii, wherein the integrated circuit includes a package coated with a metal layer. Doing so shields the integrated circuit from unwanted electromagnetic interference.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (US 2017/0062938 – of record; hereinafter Cheng) in view of Murayama et al. (US 2012/0326931 – of record; hereinafter Murayama).
Claim 21: Cheng discloses “an apparatus (multiband microline antenna) comprising: an integrated circuit (fig. 11);
a first metal layer (¶60 and fig. 6 below, conductive microline antenna traces on layer 1/608) including a first ground plane (fig. 6, grounding arm 1) and a first loop antenna (one of microline loops of fig. 6), the first loop antenna including at least a first portion (horizontal portion of loop connected at one end to micro-via 1A) and a second portion (vertical portion connected to horizontal portion of loop), wherein the second portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the first portion (90 degrees) of the first loop antenna;
a second metal layer (¶60 and fig. 6, conductive microline antenna traces on layer 2/610) including a second ground plane (fig. 6, grounding arm 2) and a second loop antenna (one of microline loops on layer 2);
a substrate (¶57 and fig. 6, the layered structure of substrates; layer 608) between the first (microline traces on layer1) and second (microline traces on layer 2) metal layers, in which the substrate and the first and second metal layers form a laminate (¶57, layered structure); and
a through-via in the substrate and coupled between the first portion of the first loop antenna (horizontal portion of loop) and second loop antenna (fig. 6, trans-through micro-via 1A to connect with antenna traces in layer 2)”.
Cheng does not explicitly disclose “the first loop antenna being on a periphery of the integrated circuit; the second loop antenna being on the periphery of the integrated circuit”. However, the antenna is shown in fig. 11 being spaced apart from an integrated circuit.
PNG
media_image4.png
396
502
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Murayama teaches (fig. 3b) “an integrated circuit (¶33; wireless communication module 5 which includes wireless IC chip 10); a first loop antenna (upper antenna pattern 35) on a periphery of the integrated circuit (5); a second loop antenna (lower antenna pattern 35) on the periphery of the integrated circuit (5)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Murayama to the apparatus of Cheng, wherein the first loop antenna is on a periphery of the integrated circuit, and the second loop antenna is on the periphery of the integrated circuit. Doing so permits the integrated circuit to be covered with a protective sealant (¶10).
Claim 22: the modified Cheng teaches the apparatus of claim 21.
Cheng discloses (fig. 6) “wherein the first and second loop antennas overlap at least partially with each other (fig. 6 shows loop antennas on layer 1 and loops antennas on layer 2 at least partially overlapping. Also, first and second loop antennas must at least partially overlap in order to be connected by the micro-via 1A)”.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Pochiraju et al. (US 2017/0344873 – of record; hereinafter Pochiraju).
Claim 23: Cheng discloses (fig. 6) “an apparatus (multiband microline antenna) comprising:
an integrated circuit (fig. 11);
a first metal layer (¶60 and fig. 6, conductive microline antenna traces on layer 1/608) including a first ground plane (fig. 6, grounding arm 1) and a loop antenna (one of microline loops of fig. 6) including at least a first portion (horizontal portion of loop on layer 1) and a second portion (vertical portion connected to horizontal portion), wherein the second portion extends at an angle greater than zero from an end of the first portion of the loop antenna (ninety degrees);
a second metal layer (¶60 and fig. 6, conductive microline antenna traces on layer 2/610) including a second ground plane (fig. 6, grounding arm 2) and a second antenna (one of microline loops on layer 2);
a substrate (¶57 and fig. 6, the layered structure of substrates; layer 608) between the first (microline traces on layer1) and second (microline traces on layer 2) metal layers, in which the substrate and the first and second metal layers form a laminate (¶57, layered structure); and
a through-via in the substrate and coupled between the first portion (horizontal portion) of the loop antenna and the second antenna (fig. 6, trans-through micro-via 1A to connect with antenna traces in layer 2)”.
Cheng does not explicitly disclose “the loop antenna being on a periphery of the integrated circuit, wherein the integrated circuit at least partially overlaps with the first ground plane; a meander antenna, the meander antenna being on the periphery of the integrated circuit”. However, Cheng does disclose (in fig. 11) the antenna being spaced apart from an integrated circuit. Cheng also discloses that the microline antenna traces can be a folded monopole (a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a meander antenna can be considered to be a type of folded monopole antenna).
Pochiraju teaches (fig. 3b) “an integrated circuit (250); a loop antenna (220) on a periphery of the integrated circuit (250); a meander antenna (200) on the periphery of the integrated circuit (250)”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Pochiraju to the Cheng apparatus, the loop antenna being on a periphery of the integrated circuit; a meander antenna, the meander antenna being on the periphery of the integrated circuit. Doing so allows for an antenna that does not require external components to achieve good matching (¶45 of Pochiraju).
Claim 24: the modified Cheng teaches the apparatus of claim 23.
Cheng does not explicitly disclose “wherein the loop antenna and the meander antenna overlap at least partially with each other”.
Pochiraju teaches “wherein the loop antenna (fig. 3b, antenna loop 220) and the meander antenna (fig. 3b, 200) overlap at least partially with each other”.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Pochiraju to the apparatus of Cheng in view of Pochiraju, wherein the loop antenna and the meander antenna overlap at least partially with each other. Doing so allows for an antenna of reduced size (¶45) while allowing for an antenna of increased length (¶46 of Pochiraju).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 6, Girard does not teach, or suggest, “wherein the second metal segment (306, 311) has a fifth metal subsegment that extends from an end of the fourth metal subsegment (306) that is more proximate to the through-via than to the third metal subsegment (311), the fifth metal subsegment having an end detached from the second ground plane (326)”.
Claim 7 is allowable due to its dependency on claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Girard does not teach, or suggest, “wherein the first and second metal subsegments form at least a part of the first antenna as a first loop antenna, and the third and fourth metal subsegments form at least a part of the second antenna as a second loop antenna”.
Claims 9-11 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA N HAMADYK whose telephone number is (703)756-1672. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/ANNA N HAMADYK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845