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 .
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, 3, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. US20240170846 in view of Yasushi et al. JP5412594 B1 (English Translation provided).
With respect to independent claim 1, Gu et al. discloses an antenna module [Fig 6-8] comprising: a coil pattern 12 planarly wound in a plurality of turns; a first adhesive layer 73 attached to a first surface of the coil pattern in an axial direction of the coil pattern; a second adhesive layer 71 attached to a second surface of the coil pattern in the axial direction of the coil pattern, the second surface being opposite to the first surface; and a magnetic member 74 attached to the first adhesive layer such that the first adhesive layer is sandwiched between the coil pattern and the magnetic member.
Gu et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second adhesive layers bulge to a gap between adjacent turns of the coil pattern.
Yasushi et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive double-sided adhesive layer 120 wherein the adhesive layer is crushed and deformed that bulge to fill a gap 132 [Fig. 8 and bottom of page 5, under (Antenna Module)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the adhesive layers of Gu et al. with the adhesive layers of Yasushi et al. to improve the adherence of the layers as taught by Yasushi et al. [top of page 10].
With respect to claim 2, Gu et al., as modified above, discloses a non- conductive member 11-13 disposed in an opening of the coil pattern and attached to at least one of the first and second adhesive layers [Fig. 7-8; paragraphs 53 and 62+].
With respect to claim 3, Gu et al., as modified above, discloses wherein the non-conductive member 11-13 is attached to both the first and second adhesive layers [Fig. 7-8; paragraphs 53 and 62+].
With respect to claim 18, Gu et al., as modified above, discloses a liner layer 72 attached to the second adhesive layer on a side opposite to the coil pattern, wherein the liner layer is configured to be removed to expose an adhesive surface of the second adhesive layer for mounting the antenna module [paragraph 10].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. US20240170846 and Yasushi et al. JP5412594 B1 (English Translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US20170213644.
With respect to claim 11, Gu et al., as modified above, disclose the antenna module as recited in claim 1 above. Gu et al., as modified above, fails to disclose wherein the magnetic member comprises a mixture of magnetic particles and resin, and is configured to serve as a magnetic path for a magnetic field generated by the coil pattern.
Lee et al. discloses wherein the magnetic member comprises a mixture of magnetic particles and resin, and is configured to serve as a magnetic path for a magnetic field generated by the coil pattern [paragraph 71]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the features of Lee et al. into the antenna module of Gu et al. to improve the structure/stability of the antenna module as taught by Lee et al. [paragraphs 71 and 94].
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh KR101458176 B1 in view of Yasushi et al. JP5412594 B1 (English Translation provided).
With respect to independent claim 1, Oh discloses an antenna module [Fig. 8] comprising: a coil pattern 13 planarly wound in a plurality of turns [Fig. 9]; a first adhesive layer 12 attached to a first surface of the coil pattern in an axial direction of the coil pattern; a second adhesive layer 14 attached to a second surface of the coil pattern in the axial direction of the coil pattern, the second surface being opposite to the first surface; and a magnetic member 10 attached to the first adhesive layer such that the first adhesive layer is sandwiched between the coil pattern and the magnetic member.
Oh fails to disclose wherein the first and second adhesive layers bulge to a gap between adjacent turns of the coil pattern.
Yasushi et al. discloses a pressure-sensitive double-sided adhesive layer 120 wherein the adhesive layer is crushed and deformed that bulge to fill a gap 132 [Fig. 8 and bottom of page 5, under (Antenna Module)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the adhesive layers of Oh with the adhesive layers of Yasushi et al. to improve the adherence of the layers as taught by Yasushi et al. [top of page 10].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh KR101458176 B1 and Yasushi et al. JP5412594 B1 (English Translation provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US20170213644.
With respect to claim 11, Oh, as modified above, disclose the antenna module as recited in claim 1 above. Oh, as modified above, fails to disclose wherein the magnetic member comprises a mixture of magnetic particles and resin, and is configured to serve as a magnetic path for a magnetic field generated by the coil pattern.
Lee et al. discloses wherein the magnetic member comprises a mixture of magnetic particles and resin, and is configured to serve as a magnetic path for a magnetic field generated by the coil pattern [paragraph 71]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the features of Lee et al. into the antenna module of Oh to improve the structure/stability of the antenna module as taught by Lee et al. [paragraphs 71 and 94].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 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.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein a thickness of the non- conductive member is substantially equal to a thickness of the coil pattern.
With respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein a Young's modulus of the non-conductive member is lower than that of a metal material constituting the coil pattern.
With respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the coil pattern has such a sectional shape that a pattern width thereof increases toward the first adhesive layer, and wherein the first adhesive layer is smaller in thickness than the second adhesive layer.
Dependent claims 7, 14, and 20 are objected to by virtue of its dependency.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest further comprising a metal member disposed such that the magnetic member is sandwiched between the first adhesive layer and the metal member.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 15, 16, and 17 are objected to by virtue of its dependency.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the non-conductive member comprises a resin material having heat resistance, and is configured to prevent a recess at a part overlapping the opening of the coil pattern.
With respect to dependent claim 13, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the non-conductive member is attached to both the first and second adhesive layers to fix the coil pattern relative to the first and second adhesive layers.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein the non-conductive member has a planar size substantially equal to an opening area of the coil pattern to enhance flatness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yasushi et al. JP2014116921A shows double-sided adhesive bulging part 122
Kumura et al. US20150325362 shows a coil antenna
Jang et al. US9812774 shows an antenna module
Yosui et al. US20180123228 shows an antenna device
Lim et al. US20180219291 shows an antenna module
Katsuhiro JP2013236267A shows antenna module
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Taningco whose telephone number is (571)272-8048. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm, EST.
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.
ALEXANDER H. TANINGCO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2844
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights