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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al (U.S. Publication US 20120146869 A1 hereby referred as Holland) in view of Weiss (U.S. Patent US 4477813 A hereby referred as Weiss) further in view of Charity (Patent application GB 2467589 A hereby referred as Charity) and further in view of Kim et al (US 20190393619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holland discloses:
An antenna module (apparatus of Fig. 2) comprising: first (6) and second radiator (7) elements separated by a gap (there is a gap between, see Fig. 2); and a dielectric body (18 and 20) configured to support (see para. 0085) the first (6) and second radiator (7) elements, the dielectric body (18 and 20) including at least one wall (top wall of 20) defining a cavity (the gap between 6 and 7 above 20 and below 22), wherein: each of the first (6) and second radiator elements (7) comprises a respective feed strip (3 and 4),
Although Holland does not explicitly teach “the cavity renders RF performance of the antenna module insensitive to properties of material of the dielectric body”,
It is the position of the Examiner that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.)
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cavity render RF performance of the antenna module insensitive to properties of material of the dielectric body in order to achieve the desired performance in diverse operating conditions.
Holland does not explicitly disclose “a cavity that encompasses a region of high electromagnetic field strength”.
However, Weiss suggests the teaching of a cavity that encompasses a region of high electromagnetic field strength (It is well known that the strength of the electric field of the dipole is strongest at the center where the interval between two conductors of a dipole antenna exist. For example, Fig. 3 shows that a relatively high concentration of electromagnetic fields is produced in the vicinity of the coupling locations 112, 114 near the center of the dipole structure (Col. 6 lines 1-4) between the first and second radiator elements (radiator 100 and the two sides) during operation of the antenna radiator (100)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cavity that encompasses a region of high electromagnetic field strength between the first and second radiator elements during operation of the antenna radiator as suggested by teachings of Weiss with the antenna module of Holland because a high concentration of electromagnetic fields is strongest at the center of a dipole which is an inherent function of dipole antennas ((Col. 6 lines 1-4), Weiss).
The modified Holland does not disclose “and the high electromagnetic field strength is generated between the first and second radiator elements due to different voltages applied to the respective feed strip”.
However, Charity teaches the high electromagnetic field strength is generated between the first (10a) (Fig. 2) and second radiator elements (10b) due to different voltages applied to the respective feed strip (teaches that “in a dipole antenna one part of the antenna is connected to a feed voltage, and the other part is connected to a different voltage, usually ground.”, Col. 2 lines 19-22) (it is an inherent quality of dipoles to have these two different voltages fed to each radiator).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the high electromagnetic field strength generated between the first and second radiator elements due to different voltages applied to the respective feed strip as taught by Charity with the antenna module of the modified Holland as it is a feature of dipoles to have these two different voltages fed to each radiator which offers improved gain (Col. 2 lines 19-23), Charity).
The modified combination of Holland, Weiss and Charity does not explicitly teach wherein the cavity formed by the walls of the dielectric body is larger than the gap separating the first and second radiator elements.
However, Kim et al teaches wherein the cavity formed by the walls of the dielectric body(cavity formed by walls of dielectric body 530 Fig 5, 730 Figs 7D, 7E )is larger than the gap separating the first and second radiator elements(gap separating radiator elements 550, 540 Fig 5, 750, 740 Figs 7D, 7E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the cavity formed by the walls of the dielectric body is larger than the gap separating the first and second radiator elements as taught by Kim et al in the modified combination of Holland, Weiss and Charity, for the purpose of reducing mutual coupling and improving the gain of the antenna(see Kim et al para. 000112, 0113, 0115, 0116)
Regarding claim 2, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holland further discloses:
wherein the cavity (the gap between 6 and 7 above 20 and below 22) corresponds with the gap (corresponds with the gap between 6 and 7, see Fig. 2) between the first (6) and second radiator (7) elements.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Holland further discloses:
wherein material of the dielectric body (18 and 20) partially (18 and 20 fill up to the bottom edge of the radiators), but not completely (there is a part of the gap that is above 20 between 6 and 7 that is not filled by 18 and 20), fills the gap between the first (6) and second radiator (7) elements.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Holland further discloses:
wherein the gap between the first and second radiator elements (the gap between 6 and 7) comprises a gap (comprises a gap between 3 and 4) between the respective feed strip (3 and 4) of each radiator element (6 and 7).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Holland further discloses:
wherein each of the first (6) and second radiator (7) elements comprises a respective radiator portion (6 and 7 radiate, see para. 0037 about the arms), and wherein the gap between the first (6) and second radiator elements (7) comprises a gap between the respective radiator portion of each radiator element (the same gap between 6 and 7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al (U.S. Publication US 20120146869 A1 hereby referred as Holland) in view of Weiss (U.S. Publication US 4477813 A hereby referred as Weiss) in view of Charity (Patent application GB 2467589 A hereby referred as Charity) and Kim et al (US 20190393619 A1) further in view of Alvarez et al (Publication EP 3166178 A1 hereby referred as Alvarez).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holland does not disclose “wherein the dielectric body is overmolded on the first and second radiator elements’.
However, Alvarez teaches wherein the dielectric body (1, Fig. 1a) is overmolded (produced in a molding process, see para. 0027) the first and second radiator elements (21 and 22).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dielectric body overmolded on the at least two radiator elements as taught by Alvarez with the antenna module of Holland in order to produce the dielectric body in a low-cost process (Para. 0027, Alvarez).
Note: Regarding claim 6, the method of overmolding is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al (U.S. Publication US 20120146869 A1 hereby referred as Holland) in view of Weiss (U.S. Publication US 4477813 A hereby referred as Weiss) in view of Charity (Patent application GB 2467589 A hereby referred as Charity) in view of Kim et al (US 20190393619 A1) further in view of Vouvakis et al (U.S. Publication US 20180040955 A1 hereby referred as Vouvakis) further in view of Singh et al (U.S. Publication US 20150311600 A1 hereby referred as Singh).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holland does not disclose “wherein at least one of at least one of the first and second radiator elements comprises a tab disposed in a region of low electromagnetic field strength between between the first and second radiator elements during operation of the antenna radiator, the tab configured to engage the dielectric body so as to fix a position of the radiator element relative to the dielectric body.”
However, Vouvakis teaches wherein at least one of the radiator elements (7) (Fig. 2B) comprises a tab (9b) disposed in a region of low electromagnetic field strength (the width of the via 4 inherently exhibits low electromagnetic field strength) between the at least two radiator elements (6 and 7) during operation of the antenna radiator (7)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one of the radiator elements comprising a tab disposed in a region of low electromagnetic field strength between the at least two radiator elements during operation of the antenna radiator as taught in Vouvakis with the antenna module of Holland in order to enhance capacitive coupling and improve impedance performance (Para. 0053, Vouvakis). Also, the low electromagnetic field strength is inherent in the structure presented by Vouvakis.
Vouvakis does not explicitly teach “the tab configured to engage the dielectric body so as to fix a position of the radiator element relative to the dielectric body.”
However, the employment of tabs to engage dielectrics and radiator elements are well known in the art because it substitutes the use of adhesives or substances to fix antenna components. For example, Singh (Fig. 5) teaches the use of tabs (211/212) configured to engage the radiator element so as to fix a position of the radiator element relative to the dielectric body (the tabs are on the dielectric body 210). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (tabs on a dielectric body) for another (tabs on a radiating element), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of using tabs to engage dielectric and radiating elements as taught by Singh with the teaching of Vouvakis to obtain the predictable results of providing additional attachment benefits with a pcb configured to engage with the respective notches (Sing, para. 0040).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al (U.S. Publication US 20120146869 A1 hereby referred as Holland) in view of Weiss (U.S. Publication US 4477813 A hereby referred as Weiss) in view of Charity (Patent application GB 2467589 A hereby referred as Charity) in view of Kim et al (US 20190393619 A1) and further in view of Koller et al (U.S. Publication US 20200373259 A1 hereby referred as Koller).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holland does not explicitly disclose “wherein the cavity is filled with air.”
However, Koller teaches wherein the cavity (cavity region 226) (Fig. 2) is filled with air (“the cavity region 226 may remain open and filled with air”, para. 0046).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cavity filled with air as taught by Koller with the antenna module of Holland in order to have a dielectric that achieves a signal with a larger bandwidth (Para. 0051, Koller).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holland does not explicitly disclose “wherein the cavity is filled with a dielectric material having dielectric properties different than the dielectric properties of the dielectric body.”
However, Koller teaches wherein the cavity (cavity region 226) (Fig. 2) is filled with a dielectric material (“the cavity region 226 may remain open and filled with air”, para. 0046) having dielectric properties different than the dielectric properties of the dielectric body (has different properties to 205 which is a bulk silicon layer, see Para. 0050).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cavity filled with a dielectric material having dielectric properties different than the dielectric properties of the dielectric body as taught by Koller with the antenna module of Holland in order to achieve a signal with a larger bandwidth (Para. 0051, Koller).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 9.
Holland does not explicitly disclose “wherein the dielectric material comprises polytetrafluoroethylene.”
However, Koller teaches wherein the dielectric material comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (the dielectric material 240 in the cavity 226 region may have polytetrafluoroethylene, see Para. 0056).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dielectric material in the cavity comprising polytetrafluoroethylene as taught by Koller with the antenna module of Holland in order to provide a low dielectric constant to achieve a signal with a larger bandwidth (Para. 0056 and 0051, Koller).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 9.
Holland does not explicitly disclose “wherein the dielectric material comprises air.”
However, Koller teaches wherein the dielectric material comprises air (“the cavity region 226 may remain open and filled with air”, para. 0046).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dielectric material in the cavity comprising air as taught by Koller with the antenna module of Holland in order to have a dielectric that achieves a signal with a larger bandwidth (Para. 0051, Koller).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland et al (U.S. Publication US 20120146869 A1 hereby referred as Holland) in view of Weiss (U.S. Patent US 4477813 A hereby referred as Weiss) in view of Charity (Patent application GB 2467589 A hereby referred as Charity) in view of Kim et al (US 20190393619 A1) and further in view of Ortigoso et al (U.S. Publication US 20190190137 A1 hereby referred as Ortigoso).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Holland discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Holland does not explicitly disclose “wherein the gap is wedge-shaped.”
However, Ortigoso teaches the gap is wedge-shaped (see the gap between the dipoles of Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the gap being wedge-shaped as taught by Ortigoso with the antenna module of Holland in order to improve impedance matching and in order to make manufacturing easier with the bending of the dipoles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art listed in the PTOL-892 Notice of References Cited attached herewith.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMEON E LEVI whose telephone number is (571)272-2105. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
