DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 05/20/2026. In virtue of this request:
Claims 12 and 15 were previously canceled;
Claims 7-10, 14, 19 and 21 are canceled;
Claims 23-28 are newly added;
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 16-18, 20 and 22 are currently amended; and thus,
Claim 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 16-18, 20 and 22-28 are pending;
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 .
Double Patenting
The rejection to claims 1-2, 10 and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 12, 14 and 16 of co-pending Application No. 18//079,938(reference application) is withdrawn/moot in view of the terminal declaimer filed on 11/27/2024 and amendments made to the claims in the instant application and co-pending application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claims 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claims 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claims 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claims 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 11 be found allowable, claims 26 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claims 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection to claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is moot in view of cancellation of the claim.
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 1-6, 8, 11, 13 20, 22 and 27-28 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the dielectric carrier” on line 5, which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term. Although the claim recites “a carrier, the carrier being a dielectric material” there remains uncertainty whether the two recited element are the same element.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the two element as being the same.
Regarding claims 2-6, 8, 11 and 13, the claims are rejected based upon dependency to rejected independent claim 1, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the based claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “the dielectric carrier” on line 5, which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term. Although the claim recites “a carrier, the carrier being a dielectric material” there remains uncertainty whether the two recited element are the same element.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the two element as being the same.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites dependency to a cancelled claim (claim 9) which renders the claim indefinite, as examiner cannot determine proper dependency.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is interpreting the claim as being dependency on independent claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “the cylindrical coil” on line 1, which renders the claim indefinite, as there is a lack of antecedent basis for said term.
Regarding claims 27-28, the claims are rejected based upon dependency to rejected independent claim 20, as all dependent claim inherits the deficiencies of the based claim.
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.
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 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 16-18, 20 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US5,864,323 hereinafter “Berthon” in view of WO2009/008861A1 hereinafter “Stewart” in view of US2024/0070409A1 hereinafter “Ershov”
Regarding claim 1, Berthon discloses a near field communication (NFC) antenna (Col.4 L4-15: an annular antenna) comprising:
a carrier (Col.4 L16: an annular core) having a base (Col.4 L19-21: annular core has core surface [11b’]) and a support ring (Col.4 L19-21: annular core has core surface [11a’]) extending from the base (as shown in Fig.1 for example), the support ring surrounding a central bore (Col.4 L19: an open center), the central bore being open through the carrier between a top of the carrier and a bottom of the carrier (as shown in Fig.1 for example); and
an antenna element coupled to the carrier (Col.4 L30-32: a wire may be wound around first portion [11a] to form a wire coil which rest upon second portion [11b] of annular core), the antenna element including a conductor arranged as a cylindrical coil, the cylindrical coil extending along the support ring and surrounding the central bore. (as shown in Fig.1 for example)
Berthon does not exactly disclose
the carrier being a dielectric material
Stewart discloses a RFID reader within an extension antenna wherein a ferrite core antenna with wires wound around a ferrite core (¶60L2-4) is used, Stewart further discloses the ferrite core can be substituted with a dielectric core (¶61L1-5) with wires wound on the dielectric core and would have no influence on the operation of the antenna.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace the ferrite cored disclosed by Berthon with the dielectric core disclosed by Stewart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the two cores are equivalent of each other, and dielectric material tends to have less weight than ferrite, thus reducing the overall weight of the antenna.
Berthon in view of Stewart hereinafter “Berthon/Stewart” does not explicitly discloses
the antenna element including a laser direct structuring (LDS) circuit formed on an LDS substrate, the LDS substrate being coupled to the support ring to wrap the LDS circuit around the central bore
Ershov discloses an electronic device wherein the antenna is formed by one or more coils (¶27L4-6: antennas may include one or more coils such as coil [26] for near-field communication) wherein the antenna element is form by using laser-structuring substrate. (¶41L1-11: signal path may include metal traces patterned to form multiple turns for coil [26]. Wires, traces on laser direct structuring substrate may also be used in forming paths)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace wire coil disclosed by Berthon with the laser-direct structure disclosed by Ershov.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the wires and traces on laser-direct structuring substrates are equivalent of each other (Ershov ¶41L1-11) , additionally, LDS removes the need for flat circuit boards; devices become smaller and lighter; and designers can easily change circuit paths using software without buying new molds
Regarding claim 2, Berthon/Stewart in view of Ershov hereinafter “Berthon/Stewart/Ershov” discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
the LDS substrate extends vertically along the support ring above the base. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov)
Regarding claim 3, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein the LDS circuit includes multiple layers of windings stacked vertically above the base. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov)
Regarding claim 4, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
the conductor LDS circuit is helically wrapped around the LDS substrate. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 5, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
wherein the LDS circuit includes multiple helical windings vertically arranged on the LDS substrate. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 6, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
the LDS circuit extends between a bottom and a top (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 rows of coil, thus exists a top/middle/bottom row of coil), the LDS circuit including a plurality of helical windings between the bottom and the top (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon, there is a middle row of coil), the helical windings arranged in a spiral pattern. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 8, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
the support ring has a support ring height between an upper surface of the base and an upper edge of the support ring (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; the surface [11a] has a height), the LDS substrate having a height between a bottom and a top of the LDS circuit, the coil height of the LDS substrate being approximately equal to the support ring height. . (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon, the height of surface [11a] is roughly the same as the height between bottom row of coil and top row of coil) (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 11, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
the LDS circuit is provide at one of an inner surface or an outer surface of the support ring. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon) (Examiner note, since there is no reference to the term “inner or outer”; therefore any surface of the surface [11a] may be interpreted as “inner or outer”) (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 13, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 1, wherein
the support ring includes a pocket, the LDS substrate being received in the pocket. (as shown in Fig.10 for example; Col.5 L63-66: U-shaped cross-section) (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 16, Berthon discloses a near field communication (NFC) antenna comprising:
a carrier (Col.4 L16: an annular core) having a base (Col.4 L19-21: annular core has core surface [11b’]) and a support ring (Col.4 L19-21: annular core has core surface [11a’]) extending from the base (as shown in Fig.1 for example), the support ring surrounding a central bore (Col.4 L19: an open center), the central bore being open through the carrier between a top of the carrier and a bottom of the carrier (as shown in Fig.1 for example), and
an antenna element coupled to the carrier (Col.4 L30-32: a wire may be wound around first portion [11a] to form a wire coil which rest upon second portion [11b] of annular core), the antenna element including a conductor (as shown in Fig.1 for example)
Berthon does not exactly disclose
the carrier being a dielectric material
Stewart discloses a RFID reader within an extension antenna wherein a ferrite core antenna with wires wound around a ferrite core (¶60L2-4) is used, Stewart further discloses the ferrite core can be substituted with a dielectric core (¶61L1-5) with wires wound on the dielectric core and would have no influence on the operation of the antenna.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace the ferrite cored disclosed by Berthon with the dielectric core disclosed by Stewart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the two cores are equivalent of each other, and dielectric material tends to have less weight than ferrite, thus reducing the overall weight of the antenna.
Berthon/Stewart” does not explicitly discloses
the antenna element including a conductor representing a laser direct structuring (LDS) circuit formed on an LDS substrate, the LDS substrate being coupled to the support ring to wrap the LDS circuit around the central bore,
Ershov discloses an electronic device wherein the antenna is formed by one or more coils (¶27L4-6: antennas may include one or more coils such as coil [26] for near-field communication) wherein the antenna element is form by using laser-structuring substrate. (¶41L1-11: signal path may include metal traces patterned to form multiple turns for coil [26]. Wires, traces on laser direct structuring substrate may also be used in forming paths)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace wire coil disclosed by Berthon with the laser-direct structure disclosed by Ershov.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the wires and traces on laser-direct structuring substrates are equivalent of each other (Ershov ¶41L1-11) , additionally, LDS removes the need for flat circuit boards; devices become smaller and lighter; and designers can easily change circuit paths using software without buying new molds
Regarding claim 17, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 16, wherein
the LDS circuit includes multiple helical windings vertically arranged on the LDS substrate. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 18, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 16, wherein
the LDS circuit extends between a bottom and a top (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 rows of coil, thus exists a top/middle/bottom row of coil), the LDS circuit including a plurality of helical windings between the bottom and the top (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon, there is a middle row of coil), the helical windings arranged in a spiral pattern. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 20, Berthon discloses a near field communication (NFC) antenna comprising:
a carrier (Col.4 L16: an annular core) having a base (Col.4 L19-21: annular core has core surface [11b’]) and a support ring (Col.4 L19-21: annular core has core surface [11a’]) extending from the base to an upper edge (as shown in Fig.1 for example), the support ring surrounding a central bore (Col.4 L19: an open center), the central bore being open through the carrier between a top of the carrier and a bottom of the carrier (as shown in Fig.1 for example); and
an antenna element coupled to the dielectric carrier (Col.4 L30-32: a wire may be wound around first portion [11a] to form a wire coil which rest upon second portion [11b] of annular core), the antenna element including a conductor (as shown in Fig.1 for example)
a cover coupled to the upper edge of the support ring, (as shown in Fig.8a for example), the cover covering the central bore, (Col.5L32-36: coil contain within a protective transparent encasement [85]) the cover being removable from the carrier. (Berthon show various embodiment wherein the encasement is not present, and an embodiment wherein the encasement is present; thus disclosing the encasement is optional and thus “removeable”)
Berthon does not exactly disclose
the carrier being a dielectric material
Stewart discloses a RFID reader within an extension antenna wherein a ferrite core antenna with wires wound around a ferrite core (¶60L2-4) is used, Stewart further discloses the ferrite core can be substituted with a dielectric core (¶61L1-5) with wires wound on the dielectric core and would have no influence on the operation of the antenna.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace the ferrite cored disclosed by Berthon with the dielectric core disclosed by Stewart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the two cores are equivalent of each other, and dielectric material tends to have less weight than ferrite, thus reducing the overall weight of the antenna.
Berthon in view of Stewart hereinafter “Berthon/Stewart” does not explicitly disclose discloses
the antenna element including a laser direct structuring (LDS) circuit formed on an LDS substrate, the LDS substrate being coupled to the support ring to wrap the LDS circuit around the central bore
Ershov discloses an electronic device wherein the antenna is formed by one or more coils (¶27L4-6: antennas may include one or more coils such as coil [26] for near-field communication) wherein the antenna element is form by using laser-structuring substrate. (¶41L1-11: signal path may include metal traces patterned to form multiple turns for coil [26]. Wires, traces on laser direct structuring substrate may also be used in forming paths)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to replace wire coil disclosed by Berthon with the laser-direct structure disclosed by Ershov.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the prior art recognizes the wires and traces on laser-direct structuring substrates are equivalent of each other (Ershov ¶41L1-11) , additionally, LDS removes the need for flat circuit boards; devices become smaller and lighter; and designers can easily change circuit paths using software without buying new molds
Regarding claim 23, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 16, wherein
the LDS substrate extends vertically along the support ring above the base. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov)
Regarding claim 24, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 16, wherein
the support ring has a support ring height between an upper surface of the base and an upper edge of the support ring (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; the surface [11a] has a height), the LDS substrate having a height between a bottom and a top of the LDS circuit, the coil height of the LDS substrate being approximately equal to the support ring height. . (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon, the height of surface [11a] is roughly the same as the height between bottom row of coil and top row of coil) (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 25, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 16, further comprising
a cover coupled to the upper edge of the support ring, (as shown in Fig.8a for example), the cover covering the central bore, (Col.5L32-36: coil contain within a protective transparent encasement [85]) the cover being removable from the carrier. (Berthon show various embodiment wherein the encasement is not present, and an embodiment wherein the encasement is present; thus disclosing the encasement is optional and thus “removeable”)
Regarding claim 26, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 16, wherein
the LDS circuit is provide at one of an inner surface or an outer surface of the support ring. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon) (Examiner note, since there is no reference to the term “inner or outer”; therefore any surface of the surface [11a] may be interpreted as “inner or outer”) (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 27, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 20, wherein
the LDS circuit is helically wrapped around the LDS substrate. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon for example) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Regarding claim 28, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 20, wherein
the LDS circuit is provide at one of an inner surface or an outer surface of the support ring. (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon) (Examiner note, since there is no reference to the term “inner or outer”; therefore any surface of the surface [11a] may be interpreted as “inner or outer”) (as shown in Fig.1 of Berthon; there is 3 column in each row of coil) (Note: all coil has been replaced by LDS structures) (also as shown in Fig.4 of Ershov for example)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Berthon/Stewart/Ershov in view of Machine Translation of JP5467577 hereinafter “Hoshi”.
Regarding claim 22, Berthon/Stewart/Ershov discloses the NFC antenna of claim 9 (see 112 rejection for examiner’s interpretation)
Berthon/Stewart/Ershov does not explicitly disclose:
the cylindrical coil LDS circuit includes multiple windings arranged on the LDS substrate in an abutting relationship.
Hoshi discloses a non-contact ID device with an antenna coil wherein the antenna coil is wound-stacked in a plurality of layers in an abutting relationship with each other. (Page.3 L9-14 and as shown in Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to modify the coils disclosed by Berthon/Stewart/Ershov to be stacked directly on top of each other as disclosed by Hoshi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because the stacked antenna can be placed in a space very small. (Page.3 L9)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at 571-242-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights