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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/05/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant argued that “The cited references (Deng, Chen, NPL) fail to disclose or render obvious 'wherein a reactance of a complex impedance from the first matching portion toward the antenna element through the first feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the first feeding structure toward the antenna element. and wherein a reactance of a complex impedance from the second matching portion toward the antenna element through the second feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the second feeding structure toward the antenna element in claim 1” and “Moreover, Deng merely discloses that the power divider performs impedance matching and divides the power at a certain ratio (e.g., 1:4). In contrast, the first matching portion and the second matching portion recited in claim 1 are used to lower the reactance from the corresponding feeding structure to the antenna elements. In particular, the first and second matching portions reduce the reactance of the antenna itself in addition to impedance matching.
The NPL is a screenshot dated March 2023, which post-dates the effective filing date of the instant application. Even if the NPL could be considered prior art as disclosing general technical knowledge or well-known facts, (e.g., when the magnitude of reactance decreases, the magnitude of impedance decreases), NPL fails to disclose specific objectives or features for reducing the magnitude of reactance at the antenna element level, such as those recited in the amended independent claims. NPL thus fails to remedy the deficiencies of Chen and Deng.”
The arguments are moot because claim 1 is not being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, CN-106356644-A in view of Jamieson, US-2903695-A as explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original claims and the specification does not have proper support for the amended limitation of “reactance of a complex impedance”. The spec only mentions the reactance of the characteristic impedance (para [0063],[0064], [0144], [00171]-[00174]).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al, CN-106356644-A (hereinafter Chen) in view of Jamieson, US-2903695-A.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses the following:
an electronic device including a sub-array module comprising:
an antenna substrate (1, fig. 1);
a plurality of antenna element units (21-24);
a first divider (5) for a first polarization (page 4, Preferred Embodiment Section to last line and page 7, para 7: The invention claims a low profile double-port microstrip array antenna uses two sets of micro-strip power divider network share a set of radiation patch on the two working frequency is close to realize good double-frequency and dual-circular-polarization performance, it is implied that first divider will feed a first working frequency and a first polarization) disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 1), including a plurality of branches corresponding to the plurality of antenna element units (fig. 1); and
a second divider (6) for a second polarization (page 4, Preferred Embodiment Section to last line and page 7, para 7: The invention claims a low profile double-port microstrip array antenna uses two sets of micro-strip power divider network share a set of radiation patch on the two working frequency is close to realize good double-frequency and dual-circular-polarization performance, it is implied that second divider will feed a second working frequency and a second polarization) disposed on the antenna substrate (fig. 1), including a plurality of branches corresponding to the plurality of antenna element units (fig. 1),
wherein each antenna element unit of the plurality of antenna element units includes:
an antenna element for radiating signals (24),
a first feeding structure (fig. 1 reproduced below) for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element (24, fig. 1),
a second feeding structure (83) for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element (24, fig. 1),
a first matching portion (page 5, para 7: impedance converter 82, i.e. matching portion) coupled to the first feeding structure and disposed to connect the first feeding structure (fig. 1) and a corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider (56 of first divider 5, fig. 1), and
a second matching portion (page 5, last para: impedance converter 84, i.e. matching portion) coupled to the second feeding structure (83) and disposed to connect the second feeding structure (83) and a corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider (63 of second divider 6, fig. 1).
Chen does not disclose wherein a reactance of a complex impedance from the first matching portion toward the antenna element through the first feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the first feeding structure toward the antenna element, and
wherein a reactance of a complex impedance from the second matching portion toward the antenna element through the second feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the second feeding structure toward the antenna element.
Jamieson suggests a reactance of a complex impedance from the matching portion toward the antenna element through the feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the feeding structure toward the antenna element (col 2, lines 27-45: the stub 41 provides a capacitive reactance which substantially cancels the remaining lumped inductive reactance at the junction, it is implied that the reactance from the matching portion 41 toward the antenna element 12 is lower than the reactance from the feeding structure 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the reactance from the first and second matching portions toward the antenna element taught in Chen to be lower than the reactance from the first and second feeding structures toward the antenna element as suggested in Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of matching the impedance between feeding structure and the antenna element in order to maximize the power transfer to improve the antenna performance (Jamieson, col 2, lines 27-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jamieson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al, US-20190393619-A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the first matching portion (page 5, para 7, fig. 1: impedance converter 82, i.e. matching portion) is used for impedance matching between the antenna element unit and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider (fig. 1), and wherein the second matching portion (page 5, last para: impedance converter 84, i.e. matching portion) is used for impedance matching between the antenna element unit and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider (fig. 1).
The combination of Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the first feeding structure and the second feeding structure are disposed to support the antenna element.
Kim suggests wherein the first feeding structure (521, fig. 5) and the second feeding structure (522) are disposed to support the antenna element (540).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second feeding structure of the electronic device taught in Chen and Jamieson to support a corresponding antenna element as suggested in Kim as claimed for the purpose of keeping the antenna element at a fixed position and separating the antenna element from other components.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jamieson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ding et al, CN-216354778-U (hereinafter Ding) applied as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the first matching portion (82, fig. 1 reproduced below) includes a first connecting portion (fig. 1) coupled to the corresponding branch of the first divider (5) and a first portion (fig. 1) for providing first signals having the first polarization to the first feeding structure (81) disposed along a first feeding direction of the first polarization (fig. 1), and
wherein the second matching portion (84,) includes a second connecting portion (fig. 1) coupled to a branch of the second divider (6) and a second linear portion (fig. 1) for providing second signals having the second polarization to the second feeding structure (83) disposed along a second feeding direction of the second polarization (fig. 1).
Although Chen does not disclose the first portion is linear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first portion of the first matching portion to be linear as the second linear portion of the second matching portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Ding applied as a teaching reference discloses the motivation to change the first portion of the first matching portion to be linear as claimed stems from the need to achieve the desired radiation beam direction and make the antenna more compact (page 10, para 4 and page 12, para 2).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jamieson as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sudo et al, US-20200388912-A1 (hereinafter Sudo).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the first matching portion further includes a first protrusion portion having a shape bent with respect to the first linear portion, and wherein the second matching portion further includes a second protrusion portion having a shape bent with respect to the second linear portion.
Sudo discloses wherein the first matching portion further includes a first protrusion portion (180, Fig. 18) having a shape bent with respect to the first linear portion (172), and
wherein the second matching portion further includes a second protrusion portion (180A) having a shape bent with respect to the second linear portion (172A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second protrusion as disclosed in Sudo to the electronic device taught in Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the impedance in order to decrease the return loss and improve the antenna’s performance (Sudo, para [0103]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the first matching portion includes at least one stub disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the first feeding direction, and wherein the second matching portion includes at least one stub disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the second feeding direction.
Sudo discloses wherein the first matching portion includes at least one stub (180, Fig. 18) disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the first feeding direction (fig. 18), and
wherein the second matching portion includes at least one stub (180A) disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the second feeding direction (fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one stub as disclosed in Sudo to the electronic device taught in Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the impedance in order to decrease the return loss and improve the antenna’s performance (Sudo, para [0103]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jamieson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al, CN-107492713-A (hereinafter Chen’713).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the antenna element unit further includes:
a third matching portion for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
a fourth matching portion for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
a third feeding structure coupled to the third matching portion, and
a fourth feeding structure coupled to the fourth matching portion,
wherein the third matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the third feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider, and
wherein the fourth matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the fourth feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider.
Chen’713 discloses wherein the antenna element unit further includes:
a third feeding structure for the first polarization (LHCP, fig. 1 reproduced below) and a fourth feeding structure for the second polarization (RHCP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third and fourth feeding structures as disclosed by Chen’713 to the electronic device taught in Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of feeding different polarizations to the antenna element in order to generate a circular polarized signal (Chen’713, page 7, para 3).
Although Chen, Jamieson and Chen’713 do not disclose the antenna element unit further includes:
a third matching portion for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
a fourth matching portion for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
the third feeding structure coupled to the third matching portion, and
the fourth feeding structure coupled to the fourth matching portion,
wherein the third matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the third feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider, and
wherein the fourth matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the fourth feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the third and fourth matching portions to the antenna element unit taught in Chen, Jamieson and Chen’713 as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). The motivation stems from the need to match the impedances between the third and fourth feeding structures and the third and fourth dividers in order to improve the antenna performance (Chen, page 3, para 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
228
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 9-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jamieson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baek et al, US-20210098863-A1 (hereinafter Baek).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chen and Jamieson does not disclose the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a metal plate for ground,
wherein the antenna substrate is disposed on one surface of the metal plate.
Baek discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a metal plate for ground (170/270, figs. 1-2, para [0050]),
wherein the antenna substrate (160,110/210, figs. 1-2) is disposed on one surface of the metal plate (170/270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metal plate for ground as disclosed in Baek to the electronic device taught in Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of reducing noise and improving signal propagation in order to enhance the antenna performance.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Chen and Jamieson does not disclose
wherein the antenna substrate is formed by at least a part of a dielectric, and
wherein the dielectric includes at least one support portion for supporting the antenna element.
Baek discloses wherein the antenna substrate is formed by at least a part of a dielectric (160,110/210, figs. 1-2, the antenna substrate 160, 110 are insulators, it is implied that the antenna substrate is a part of the dielectric, see para [0048]), and
wherein the dielectric includes at least one support portion (fig. 1 below) for supporting the antenna element (120, para [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support portion as disclosed in Baek to the electronic device taught in Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of keeping the antenna element at a fixed position and separating the antenna element from other components.
PNG
media_image3.png
276
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al, KR-20220037913-A (hereinafter Choi) in view of Chen, CN-106356644-A, and further in view of in view of Jamieson, US-2903695-A.
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses the following:
an electronic device comprising:
a processor (1014, fig. 10);
radio frequency (RF) processing chains (1013);
a filter (1012); and
an antenna array module including a plurality of sub-array modules (1011), wherein each sub-array module of the plurality of sub-array modules includes:
an antenna substrate (310, fig. 3A);
a plurality of antenna element units (300-1 to 300-6).
Choi does not disclose wherein each sub-array module of the plurality of sub-array modules includes: a first divider for a first polarization disposed on the antenna substrate, including a plurality of branches corresponding to the plurality of antenna element units, and a second divider for a second polarization disposed on the antenna substrate, including a plurality of branches corresponding to the plurality of antenna element units, and wherein each antenna element unit of the plurality of antenna element units includes: an antenna element for radiating signals, a first feeding structure for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element, a second feeding structure for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element, a first matching portion coupled to the first feeding structure and disposed to connect the first feeding structure and a corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider, and a second matching portion coupled to the second feeding structure and disposed to connect the second feeding structure and a corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider.
Chen discloses wherein each sub-array module of the plurality of sub-array modules includes:
a first divider (5) for a first polarization (page 4, Preferred Embodiment Section to last line and page 7, para 7: The invention claims a low profile double-port microstrip array antenna uses two sets of micro-strip power divider network share a set of radiation patch on the two working frequency is close to realize good double-frequency and dual-circular-polarization performance, it is implied that first divider will feed a first working frequency and a first polarization) disposed on the antenna substrate (1, fig. 1), including a plurality of branches corresponding to the plurality of antenna element units (fig. 1); and
a second divider (6) for a second polarization (page 4, Preferred Embodiment Section to last line and page 7, para 7: The invention claims a low profile double-port microstrip array antenna uses two sets of micro-strip power divider network share a set of radiation patch on the two working frequency is close to realize good double-frequency and dual-circular-polarization performance, it is implied that second divider will feed a second working frequency and a second polarization) disposed on the antenna substrate (1, fig. 1), including a plurality of branches corresponding to the plurality of antenna element units (fig. 1),
wherein each antenna element unit of the plurality of antenna element units includes:
an antenna element for radiating signals (24),
a first feeding structure (fig. 1 reproduced below) for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element (24, fig. 1),
a second feeding structure (83) for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element (fig. 1),
a first matching portion (page 5, para 7: impedance converter 82, i.e. matching portion) coupled to the first feeding structure and disposed to connect the first feeding structure (81) and a corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider (fig. 1), and
a second matching portion (page 5, last para: impedance converter 84, i.e. matching portion) coupled to the second feeding structure (83) and disposed to connect the second feeding structure (83) and a corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the antenna element, the first and second feeding structures and the first and second matching portions as taught in Chen to the electronic device taught in Choi as claimed for the purpose of providing different polarizations to the antenna elements.
The combination of Choi and Chen does not disclose wherein a reactance of a complex impedance from the first matching portion toward the antenna element through the first feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the first feeding structure toward the antenna element, and
wherein a reactance of a complex impedance from the second matching portion toward the antenna element through the second feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the second feeding structure toward the antenna element.
Jamieson suggests a reactance of a complex impedance from the matching portion toward the antenna element through the feeding structure is lower than a reactance of a complex impedance from the feeding structure toward the antenna element (col 2, lines 27-45: the stub 41 provides a capacitive reactance which substantially cancels the remaining lumped inductive reactance at the junction, it is implied that the reactance from the matching portion 41 toward the antenna element 12 is lower than the reactance from the feeding structure 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the reactance from the first and second matching portions toward the antenna element taught in Choi and Chen to be lower than the reactance from the first and second feeding structures toward the antenna element as suggested in Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of matching the impedance between feeding structure and the antenna element in order to maximize the power transfer to improve the antenna performance (Jamieson, col 2, lines 27-45).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Chen and Jamieson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al, US-20190393619-A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 13, Choi does not disclose wherein the first feeding structure and the second feeding structure are disposed to support the antenna element,
wherein the first matching portion is used for impedance matching between the antenna element unit and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider, and
wherein the second matching portion is used for impedance matching between the antenna element unit and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider.
Chen discloses wherein the first matching portion (page 5, para 7, fig. 1: impedance converter 82, i.e. matching portion) is used for impedance matching between the antenna element unit and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider (fig. 1), and wherein the second matching portion (page 5, last para: impedance converter 84, i.e. matching portion) is used for impedance matching between the antenna element unit and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second matching portions as taught in Chen to the electronic device taught in Choi as claimed for the purpose of reducing the signal loss during transmitting and improving the antenna performance.
The combination of Choi, Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the first feeding structure and the second feeding structure are disposed to support the antenna element.
Kim suggests wherein the first feeding structure (521, fig. 5) and the second feeding structure (522) are disposed to support the antenna element (540).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the first and second feeding structure of the electronic device taught in Choi, Chen and Jamieson to support a corresponding antenna element as suggested in Kim as claimed for the purpose of keeping the antenna element at a fixed position and separating the antenna element from other components.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Chen and Jamieson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ding applied as a teaching reference.
Regarding claim 14, Choi does not disclose wherein the first matching portion includes a first connecting portion coupled to the corresponding branch of the first divider and a first linear portion for providing first signals having the first polarization to the first feeding structure disposed along a first feeding direction of the first polarization, and
wherein the second matching portion includes a second connecting portion coupled to a branch of the second divider and a second linear portion for providing second signals having the second polarization to the second feeding structure disposed along a second feeding direction of the second polarization.
Chen discloses wherein the first matching portion (82, fig. 1 reproduced below) includes a first connecting portion (fig. 1) coupled to the corresponding branch of the first divider (5) and a first portion (fig. 1) for providing first signals having the first polarization to the first feeding structure (81) disposed along a first feeding direction of the first polarization (fig. 1), and
wherein the second matching portion (84,) includes a second connecting portion (fig. 1) coupled to a branch of the second divider (6) and a second linear portion (fig. 1) for providing second signals having the second polarization to the second feeding structure (83) disposed along a second feeding direction of the second polarization (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second matching portions as taught in Chen to the electronic device taught in Choi as claimed for the purpose of reducing the signal loss during transmitting and improving the antenna performance.
Although Chen does not disclose the first portion is linear, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first portion of the first matching portion to be linear as the second linear portion of the second matching portion, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977).
Ding applied as a teaching reference discloses the motivation to change the first portion of the first matching portion to be linear as claimed stems from the need to achieve the desired radiation beam direction and make the antenna more compact (page 10, para 4 and page 12, para 2).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Chen and Jamieson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Sudo et al, US-20200388912-A1 (hereinafter Sudo).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Choi, Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the first matching portion further includes a first protrusion portion having a shape bent with respect to the first linear portion, and wherein the second matching portion further includes a second protrusion portion having a shape bent with respect to the second linear portion.
Sudo discloses wherein the first matching portion further includes a first protrusion portion (180, Fig. 18) having a shape bent with respect to the first linear portion (172), and
wherein the second matching portion further includes a second protrusion portion (180A) having a shape bent with respect to the second linear portion (172A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first and second protrusion as disclosed in Sudo to the electronic device taught in Choi, Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the impedance in order to decrease the return loss and improve the antenna’s performance (Sudo, para [0103]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Choi, Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the first matching portion includes at least one stub disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the first feeding direction, and wherein the second matching portion includes at least one stub disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the second feeding direction.
Sudo discloses wherein the first matching portion includes at least one stub (180, Fig. 18) disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the first feeding direction (fig. 18), and
wherein the second matching portion includes at least one stub (180A) disposed based on a direction perpendicular to the second feeding direction (fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one stub as disclosed in Sudo to the electronic device taught in Choi, Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the impedance in order to decrease the return loss and improve the antenna’s performance (Sudo, para [0103]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Chen and Jamieson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al, CN-107492713-A (hereinafter Chen’713).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Choi, Chen and Jamieson does not disclose wherein the antenna element unit further includes:
a third matching portion for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
a fourth matching portion for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
a third feeding structure coupled to the third matching portion, and
a fourth feeding structure coupled to the fourth matching portion,
wherein the third matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the third feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider, and
wherein the fourth matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the fourth feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider.
Chen’713 discloses wherein the antenna element unit further includes:
a third feeding structure for the first polarization (LHCP, fig. 1 reproduced above) and a fourth feeding structure for the second polarization (RHCP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third and fourth feeding structures as disclosed by Chen’713 to the electronic device taught in Choi, Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of feeding different polarizations to the antenna element in order to generate a circular polarized signal (Chen’713, page 7, para 3).
Although the combination of Choi, Chen, Jamieson and Chen’713 do not disclose the antenna element unit further includes:
a third matching portion for the first polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
a fourth matching portion for the second polarization, coupled to the antenna element,
the third feeding structure coupled to the third matching portion, and
the fourth feeding structure coupled to the fourth matching portion,
wherein the third matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the third feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the first divider, and
wherein the fourth matching portion of each antenna element unit is disposed between the fourth feeding structure and the corresponding branch of the branches of the second divider, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the third and fourth matching portions to the antenna element unit taught in Choi, Chen, Jamieson and Chen’713 as claimed, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). The motivation stems from the need to match the impedances between the third and fourth feeding structures and the third and fourth dividers in order to improve the antenna performance (Chen, page 3, para 4).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Chen and Jamieson as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Baek et al, US-20210098863-A1 (hereinafter Baek).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Choi, Chen and Jamieson does not disclose the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising:
a metal plate for ground,
wherein the antenna substrate is disposed on one surface of the metal plate.
Baek discloses the electronic device of claim 11, further comprising:
a metal plate for ground (170/270, figs. 1-2, para [0050]),
wherein the antenna substrate (160,110/210, figs. 1-2) is disposed on one surface of the metal plate (170/270).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a metal plate for ground as disclosed in Baek to the electronic device taught in Choi, Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of reducing noise and improving signal propagation in order to enhance the antenna performance.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Choi, Chen and Jamieson does not disclose
wherein the antenna substrate is formed by at least a part of a dielectric, and
wherein the dielectric includes at least one support portion for supporting the antenna element.
Baek discloses wherein the antenna substrate is formed by at least a part of a dielectric (160,110/210, figs. 1-2, the antenna substrate 160, 110 are insulators, it is implied that the antenna substrate is a part of the dielectric, see para [0048]), and
wherein the dielectric includes at least one support portion (fig. 1 below) for supporting the antenna element (120, para [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the support portion as disclosed in Baek to the electronic device taught in Choi, Chen and Jamieson as claimed for the purpose of keeping the antenna element at a fixed position and separating the antenna element from other components.
Citation of Pertinent Art
Anguera Pros et al, US-12249755-B2, fig. 3: reactance cancellation circuit
Yu et al, US-20230155271-A1, para [0048], [0049]: “a matching network needs to be used to remove a reactance part of the antenna and make resistance parts of the antenna and the receiver equal”.
Conclusion
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights