DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14-17, and 20 under 35 USC 112(b), said rejection is withdrawn due to proper amendments.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14-17, and 20 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see page 7, that Han does not disclose or suggest determining resonance behavior by physically connecting or disconnecting the tuning circuit to/from the metal frame to reconstruct different resonance paths. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Han clearly discloses the case when the tuning circuit (the adjustable components 120, 122, 124 disclosed in [0061], Fig. 6) are in open state (see [0065] an open circuit between 104 and 16) or coupled states with adjustable amount of inductance ([0065]) which are controlled by the switches 150, 152, 154 (Fig. 6, [0066]).
Applicant further argues Han does not disclose a three segment metal frame such that different portions of the metal frame participate in forming different resonance paths. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Han’s device has a metal housing having peripheral portion ([0071] peripheral conductive structure 16) and rear portion as shown in Fig. 1 ([0071] rear wall of device 10).
Applicant further argues, see page 8, that relative locations of the feed point and the grounding point do matter unlike Japikse and Kuhle because changing the locations would alter the frequency behavior of the antenna. While Examiner does not disagree that the frequency behavior would be affected, the relative locations with respect to the second metal frame or the third metal frame would not make a difference to the thrust of the invention, i.e., the first resonance path without the tuning circuit and the second resonance path with the tuning circuit. The Specification discloses the requirement on the locations of the feeding point and the grounding point such that the tuning circuit 4 is to be placed between the feeding point and grounding point (Fig. 2 and [0079] of the Specification as filed) for the performance reasons. This does not require one point to be closer to one metal frame and the other point to be closer to another metal frame. Even if both points are located close to the second metal frame, it would not make difference in terms of the thrust of the invention as long as the tuning circuit 4 is located between the two points. The paragraph [0081] of the Specification merely states that the feed point is located (or happen to be situated) near the second frame and the grounding point is located near the third frame without any specific reasons, any advantages, or as a solution to a known problem. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would place the feeding and grounding points based on the design needs.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2018/0342794 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Han teaches an antenna assembly, comprising;
a metal frame (Fig. 1, [0025] metal housing 12, Fig. 6), provided with a feed point (Fig. 6, [0059] positive antenna feed terminal 98);
a matching circuit, connected to the feed point disposed on the metal frame ([0062] matching circuitry 140);
a tuning circuit ([0066] adjustable components 120, 122, 124);
an antenna wiring, connected between the feed point and the tuning circuit ([0050] signal conductor 94); and
wherein the antenna wiring is spaced at a predetermined distance from the metal frame (Fig. 6, 94, [0050] 94 may form parts of a coaxial cable, a stripline, or a microstrip transmission line), the metal frame is further provided with a grounding point (Figs. 5 and 6, 100, [0057] ground antenna feed terminal 100 ), the tuning circuit (Fig. 6, [0066] 120) is disposed between the grounding point (100) and the feed point (98), when the tuning module is not connected to the metal frame, the metal frame and the grounding point form a first resonance path ([0068] a third state in which both inductors L1 and L2 are decoupled, short circuit paths without inductors between 104 and peripheral conductive structure 16, in which adjustable component 120 forms an open circuit between terminal 126 and terminal 128), when the tuning circuit is connected to the metal frame, the metal frame and the tuning circuit form a second resonance path ([0067], [0068] one or both of L1 L2 are connected through the switch 150);
wherein the tuning circuit comprises a switching switch (Fig. 6, [0066] switch 150) and a resistor—inductor— capacitor (RLC) circuit ([0066] inductive, capacitive, resistive components);
the RLC circuit comprises a plurality of shunts (Fig. 6, 120, 128, 126, 100);
a fixed end of the switching switch is connected to the antenna wiring (Fig. 6, 128 connected to 94);
a plurality of switching ends of the switching switch are correspondingly connected to one end of the shunts, and the other end of the shunts is grounded (Fig. 6, 100);
the metal frame (Fig. 6, 12) comprises a first metal frame (Figs. 5 and 6, 104, [0059] ground plane 104, corresponding to the rear housing wall of Fig. 1, [0026]), a second metal frame connected to the first metal frame (Fig. 1, 16, [0026] peripheral housing structure 16, bottom portion of 16 shown in Fig. 1, near 24, perpendicular to the rear housing wall), and a third metal frame connected to the first metal frame (Fig. 1, 16, [0026] peripheral housing structure 16, top portion of 16 shown in Fig. 1, near 26, perpendicular to the rear housing wall),
wherein the feed point is located on a portion of the first metal frame adjacent to a connection region between the first metal frame and the second metal frame (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, 98 on 16), and the ground point is located on a portion of the first metal frame adjacent to a connection region between the first metal frame and the third metal frame (Fig. 6, 98, 100 located on 104 further away toward top in the figure), such that the first resonance path ([0068] a third state in which both inductors L1 and L2 are decoupled, short circuit paths without inductors between 104 and peripheral conductive structure 16, in which adjustable component 120 forms an open circuit between terminal 126 and terminal 128) and the second resonance path ([0067], [0068] one or both of L1 L2 are connected through the switch 150) are formed through different portions of the metal frame (Figs. 5 and 6, the first path without crossing the slot and the second path crossing the slot via the adjustable components 120, 122 and/or 124).
It is noted that the relative locations of the feed point and the grounding point with respect to the metal frames are an obvious matter of rearrangement of parts which the court determined unpatentable. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, further comprising a wiring support, wherein the antenna wiring is disposed on the wiring support ([0050] coaxial cable, stripline, or a microstrip transmission line).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 3 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, wherein the antenna wiring is a laser direct structure (LDS) antenna or a flexible printed circuit (FPC) antenna; and the wiring support is an antenna bracket or a printed circuit board ([0050] printed circuit board).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, wherein the tuning circuit is further connected to the metal frame (Fig. 6, 120, 126, 124).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, wherein a connection point (Fig. 6, 126) disposed between the tuning circuit (120) and the metal frame (12) is located between the grounding point (100) and the feed point (98).
Regarding claim 9, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Han.
Han does not explicitly teach the assembly, wherein the matching circuit comprises:
a first resistor, connected to a power supply; a second resistor, connected between the first resistor and the antenna wiring; a third resistor, connected between the antenna wiring and a ground; and a fourth resistor, connected between the second resistor and the ground.
However, Han teaches the assembly, wherein the matching circuit includes switching circuitry and circuit components such as resistive components and further teaches any desired components may be formed in matching network ([0069]).
It has been held obvious to try to optimize variables with the prior art structure (see. In In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.").)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to try with the structure taught by Han, various impedances in order to match the impedance or tune the antenna to a desired frequency band or bands (Han, [0073]).
Regarding claim 10, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, wherein the antenna wiring is arranged parallel or inclined relative to the metal frame ([0050] coaxial cable, stripline, or a microstrip transmission line).
Regarding claim 11, all the limitations of claim 7 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, wherein the first metal frame, the second metal frame, and the third metal frame are located on the same plane (Fig. 6, 12, 12-1, 12-2).
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 20, all the limitations of claim 12 are taught by Han.
Han further teaches the assembly, further comprising a middle frame wherein the grounding point on the metal frame of the antenna assembly is connected to the middle frame (Fig. 6, 12).
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 SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-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 H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844