Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 04/06/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-15 are currently pending in this Office Action.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn claims and applicant is suggested to cancel the withdrawn claim, as elected without traverse, in order to advance the prosecution.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant argues mainly for the amended claim limitations “wherein the bridge is extended from the first outer edge of the main body such that a gap is provided between the at least one antenna radiator and the main body”.
However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in newly cited prior art in combining with previously applied prior art.
Initially, in accordance with MPEP 2111, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what is an advantage of the gap that’s used for a particular purpose or solved a stated problem. For instance, is the gap for emitting signal or radiation of heat as well? Indeed, claim does not require a specific structure or a material for a bridge extension and a purpose for a gap to solve a problem, structurally, the amended claim limitation could be reasonably interpreted as space between PCB’s main body and the antenna radiator. In fact, Kim explains the space requirement for the antenna radiator (par. 0071, 0081), empty spaces between radiators (par. 0085) and the metallic sheet, i.e., PCB’s main body, spaced apart from the antenna radiator (par. 0096), and PCB , i.e., the metallic sheeted, spaced apart from side surface (par. 0101). What’s more, fig. 4 of Kang and fig. 17 of Kim could display structurally a protrusion as to a bridge to leave a gap between the protrusion and the structure that the protrusion extends from such as a rectangle frame or a square frame (see more for space arrangement in fig. 3-12 of Shin et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0136243 A1). In particular, newly cited prior art explains why the gap between the antenna radiator and other structures and even the gap between the antenna radiators (see fig. 3 & 9 and par. 0050-0051). See greater details in the following claim rejection section.
It’s to note that the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
5. Claims 1-4, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. Pub. No.: US 2015/0109170 A1 in view of Kim et al. Pub. No: US 2017/0302771 A1 and Fabrega Sanchez et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0106183 A1.
Claim 1
Kang discloses an electronic device (mobile terminal in fig. 1-12) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
784
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a communication module (202 having antenna 290 and radiation patterns P1-2 in fig. 4);
a printed circuit board (PCB) (251 in fig. 4) provided with the communication module (2nd cover 202, metallic frame 300 facilitates PCB 251 of fig. 4, see fig. 2-3); and
a housing supporting the PCB (fig. 2-4, combination of 1-3 covers, PCB and metallic frame; alternatively, see fig. 9 for metallic frame 300 in fig. 4 and fig. 8, as depicted in fig. 4, PCB 251-252 will be stacked in fig. 2-3, i.e., supporting the PCB), and comprising an inner supporter made of a conductive material (see MPEP 2111, with reasonably interpretation, par. 0144 reads on by describing that a metallic frame 300 supports inside of the mobile terminal, display module, an antenna device or module, and a main printed circuit board 251) and an outer casing supporting the inner supporter (outer rectangular frame of 300 in fig. 4, see fig. 2-3 & 8, see par. 0145 for stating that the metallic frame is exposed to outside of the mobile terminal and also to support devices or modules as explained in par. 0144), the inner supporter comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
416
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a main body (metallic frame 300 in fig. 4 and see fig. 2-3 & 8), a bridge extended from a first outer edge of the main body in a certain direction (rectangular bridge extending from edge portion as depicted in fig. 8 and if referring to fig. 8, there’ll be four outer edges at least metallic frame, see par. 0144 for receiving display module, PCB, battery and antenna device),
at least one antenna radiator (antenna 290 and P1-2 in fig. 4 connecting to fig. 8-9, 321-322 radiation pattern) extended from the bridge along a second outer edge of the housing (as depicted in fig. 8-9, radiation patterns 321 or 322 extend from one side to the second side, i.e., edges and see par. 0183),
a contact portion (conductive connection portion 342 in fig. 9 or conductive members in par. 0152) provided from the at least one antenna radiator and facing toward an inside of the housing (fig. 9 and par. 0184, the conductive connection portion 342 for connection of the radiation portion of the metallic frame 300, i.e., the housing), and
a connecting member (a plastic member at a metallic member in par. 0177 in view of fig. 4 & 8-9 or socket 219 in fig. 2-4 & 8-9) made of a non-conductive material (display module 210b in fig. 4) and fixing the at least one antenna radiator (plastic member explained in par. 0177).
Although Kang does not explicitly disclose: “a main body made of a conductive sheet; wherein the bridge is extended from the first outer edge of the main body such that a gap is provided between the at least one antenna radiator and the main body”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitation “a main body made of a conductive sheet”, initially, recall that Kang depicts fig. 9 for the metallic frame having PCB. What’s more, Kang displaces the display unit could be a touch sheet (par. 0086), flexible PCB (fig. 7 & 9 and par. 0189-0190 & 0912) and the metallic frame supports the display module, the antenna and PCB (par. 0144). It means that in view of fig. 2-4 & 8-9 of Kang, metal frame has main body as a display module or PCB or both that are conductive sheet and thus, this teaching of Kang could have rendered the addressing claim limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Kim teaches an electronic device having a metallic sheet (131 in fig. 1-2 and par. 0056, see fig. 4 and par. 0094 & 0097). Additionally, Kim teaches the antenna radiator (170 in fig. 1-2 and see par. 0081-0082) and a non-conductive plane (120 in fig. 1-2 and non-conductive member 160 in par. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a mobile terminal of Kang by providing an electronic device including antenna as taught in Kim. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device to include antenna so that the interference incurred from the antenna would be minimized and the performance would not be degraded as suggested in par. 0004-0006 in Kim.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “wherein the bridge is extended from the first outer edge of the main body such that a gap is provided between the at least one antenna radiator and the main body”, recall that Kim discloses a PCB having a flexible conductive connector, as to a metallic sheet explained in par.0056, electronically connected to the antenna radiator (par. 0103). Additionally, fig. 4 of Kang and fig. 17 of Kim could display structurally a protrusion as to a bridge to leave a gap between the protrusion and the structure that the protrusion extends from such as a rectangle frame or a square frame (see fig. 8 of Kang that depicts many bridges with gap between them extending along inside the frame as to the main body). In particular, Fabrega Sanchez teaches a gap between the antenna radiators (fig. 9-10 and par. 0050-0051) and the gap required for radiation as explained in par. 0051 and fig. 3 & 9-10. Unless claim further recites what are required to be a bridge and what the gap is used for solving the problem or enhancing a specific performance over the prior art by a patentable weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined teaching of Kang in view of Kim with the gap used for radiation in Fabrega Sanchez to perform equally well to the addressing claim limitations. See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationales F-G.
PNG
media_image3.png
598
926
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a mobile terminal of Kang in view of Kim by providing multi-layer patch antenna as taught in Fabrega Sanchez to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a mobile communication device with an antenna system with the multi-layer patch radiators to support the wireless communication over a range of frequencies so that the beams could be steered into the effective beamwidths for a narrower beam and a Pseudo-Omni beam as suggested in par. 0001-0003 in Fabrega Sanchez.
Claim 2
Kang, in view of Kim and Fabrega Sanchez, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein at least one among the bridge, the at least one antenna radiator and the contact portion is formed by bending a strap extended outwards from the first outer edge of the main body (Kang, see antenna 290 and radiation patterns P1-2 of fig. 4 into fig. 9 and edge portion in fig. 8, and also see flexible PCBs and coaxial cable 261-263 in fig. 9 like a strap; Kim, the antenna radiator 170 in fig. 1-2 and fig. 20 shows the use of strap on smart watch and par. 0066-0067; for these reasons, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale F).
Claim 3
Kang, in view of Kim and Fabrega Sanchez, discloses the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one antenna radiator is extended being bent perpendicularly to a first sheet surface of the main body (Kang, antenna and radiation patterns in fig. 4 & 8-9; Kim, see fig. 4, 33metallic sheet 131 and the antenna radiator 170 in fig. 1-2, the antenna radiator may be spaced apart from the display panel in the vertical direction in par. 0081; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 4
Kang, in view of Kim and Fabrega Sanchez, discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the contact portion is formed by transforming a second sheet surface of the at least one antenna radiator to protrude toward the main body (Kang, antenna and radiation patterns and see 1st, 2nd , 3rd covers and display module in fig. 4 & 8-9 and see protrusions in fig. 4 & 9; Kim, metallic sheet and antenna radiator 170 in fig. 1-2 and fig. 17 and see par. 0066 & 0100-0102; accordingly, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim, see MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationale G).
Claim 6
Kang, in view of Kim and Fabrega Sanchez, discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein
the at least one antenna radiator comprises two or more antenna radiators (Kang, two radiators P1-P2 in fig. 4 and 321-322 in fig. 8-9; Kim, first, second and third radiators 371-373 in fig. 3A-B and par. 0084),
each of the two or more antenna radiators is provided with a first coupling unit (Kang, fig. 4 & 8-9 for non-metallic coupling 330 and the conductive coupling 291, a through hole 341 and a conductive connection portion 342 in fig. 9), and
the connecting member comprises a second coupling unit coupled to the first coupling unit (Kang, par. 0184-0185, the conductive connection portion 342 extends from an inner circumference of the through hole to the metallic frame 300 with second cover 202 in as depicted in fig. 4 & 8-9 for non-metallic coupling 330 and the conductive coupling 291; Kim, connecting member and coupling in par. 0135 and see fig. 3A-B for coupling radiator to feeding units and ground units in par. 0087; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 12
Kang discloses an electronic device (mobile terminal in fig. 1-12) comprising:
a housing comprising (fig. 2-4, combination of 1-3 covers, PCB and metallic frame; alternatively, see fig. 9 for metallic frame 300 in fig. 4 and fig. 8, as depicted in fig. 4, PCB 251-252 will be stacked in fig. 2-3, i.e., supporting the PCB) an inner supporter made of a conductive material (see MPEP 2111, with reasonably interpretation, par. 0144 reads on by describing that a metallic frame 300 supports inside of the mobile terminal, display module, an antenna device or module, and a main printed circuit board 251) and an outer casing supporting the inner supporter (outer rectangular frame of 300 in fig. 4, see fig. 2-3 & 8, see par. 0145 for stating that the metallic frame is exposed to outside of the mobile terminal and also to support devices or modules as explained in par. 0144),
the inner supporter comprising:
a main body (metallic frame 300 in fig. 4 and see fig. 2-3 & 8),
a bridge extended from a first outer edge of the main body in a certain direction (rectangular bridge extending from edge portion as depicted in fig. 8 and if referring to fig. 8, there’ll be four out edges at least metallic frame, see par. 0144 for receiving display module, PCB, batter and antenna device),
at least one antenna radiator (antenna 290 and P1-2 in fig. 4 connecting to fig. 8-9, 321-322 radiation pattern) extended from the bridge along a second outer edge of the housing (as depicted in fig. 8-9, radiation patterns 321 or 322 extend from one side to the second side, i.e., edges and see par. 0183),
a contact portion (conductive connection portion 342 in fig. 9 or conductive members in par. 0152) provided from the at least one antenna radiator and facing toward an inside of the housing (fig. 9 and par. 0184, the conductive connection portion 342 for connection of the radiation portion of the metallic frame 300, i.e., the housing), and
a connecting member (a plastic member at a metallic member in par. 0177 in view of fig. 4 & 8-9) made of a non-conductive material and fixing the at least one antenna radiator (plastic member explained in par. 0177 and see fig. 4 connecting to fig. 8-9).
Although Kang does not explicitly disclose: “a main body made of a conductive sheet; wherein the bridge is extended from the first outer edge of the main body such that a gap is provided between the at least one antenna radiator and the main body”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitation “a main body made of a conductive sheet”, initially, recall that Kang depicts fig. 9 for the metallic frame having PCB. What’s more, Kang displaces the display unit could be a touch sheet (par. 0086), flexible PCB (fig. 7 & 9 and par. 0189-0190 & 0912) and the metallic frame supports the display module, the antenna and PCB (par. 0144). It means that in view of fig. 2-4 & 8-9 of Kang, metal frame has main body as a display module or PCB or both that are conductive sheet and thus, this teaching of Kang could have rendered the addressing claim limitation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Kim teaches an electronic device having a metallic sheet (131 in fig. 1-2 and par. 0056, see fig. 4 and par. 0094 & 0097). Additionally, Kim teaches the antenna radiator (170 in fig. 1-2 and see par. 0081-0082) and a non-conductive plane (120 in fig. 1-2 and non-conductive member 160 in par. 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a mobile terminal of Kang by providing an electronic device including antenna as taught in Kim. Such a modification would have provided an electronic device to include antenna so that the interference incurred from the antenna would be minimized and the performance would not be degraded as suggested in par. 0004-0006 in Kim.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the amended claim limitations “wherein the bridge is extended from the first outer edge of the main body such that a gap is provided between the at least one antenna radiator and the main body”, recall that Kim discloses a PCB having a flexible conductive connector, as to a metallic sheet explained in par.0056, electronically connected to the antenna radiator (par. 0103). Additionally, fig. 4 of Kang and fig. 17 of Kim could display structurally a protrusion as to a bridge to leave a gap between the protrusion and the structure that the protrusion extends from such as a rectangle frame or a square frame. In particular, Fabrega Sanchez teaches a gap between the antenna radiators (fig. 9-10 and par. 0050-0051) and the gap required for radiation as explained in par. 0051 and fig. 3 & 9-10. Unless claim further recites what are required to be a bridge and what the gap is used for solving the problem or enhancing a specific performance over the prior art by a patentable weight, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined teaching of Kang in view of Kim with the gap used for radiation in Fabrega Sanchez to perform equally well to the addressing claim limitations. See MPEP 2143, KSR Exemplary Rationales F-G.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a mobile terminal of Kang in view of Kim by providing multi-layer patch antenna as taught in Fabrega Sanchez to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a mobile communication device with an antenna system with the multi-layer patch radiators to support the wireless communication over a range of frequencies so that the beams could be steered into the effective beamwidths for a narrower beam and a Pseudo-Omni beam as suggested in par. 0001-0003 in Fabrega Sanchez.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 5 and 7-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. 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.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jinsong Hu can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights