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 1-5, 14-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirimoto
et al (US 2020/0303813) in view of Li et al (US 2012/0050114).
PNG
media_image1.png
312
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Mirimoto discloses in Figure 2, an antenna, comprising:
a base (32) that includes a first surface and a second surface located at an opposite side in
relation to the first surface;
a first conductor layer (41) that includes a third surface facing the first surface, a fourth surface
located at an opposite side in relation to the third surface, and a first side surface located between the
third surface and the fourth surface; and
a first cover layer (31) that covers the fourth surface and the first side surface, wherein the first side surface includes a first end connected to the third surface and a second end connected to the fourth surface, the first end is located outward of the second end in a plan view.
Mirimoto is silent on the first cover layer (31) including a first colored layer that includes a
colorant.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It is a common practice and well known in the
art that a colored cover layer is used to provide an aesthetically pleasing cover. One of such examples is
the teaching of Li in par. 0073 and Fig. 11, the first cover layer (84) including a first colored layer that includes a colorant. Therefore, to employ having the cover layer as claimed invention would have been
obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Li discloses in Figure 11 and par. 0067,
a ground (12) that including a second conductor layer located at the second surface side with
respect to the base (78), the ground (12) including second perimeter located outward of the first side
surface in a plan view.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Mirimoto discloses in Figure 2,
wherein the first side surface includes a surface located of a virtual straight line passing through the first end and the second end in a cross-sectional view; and
the first colored layer (31) is in contact with the fourth surface and the inward curved surface.
Mirimoto does not disclose the surface being an inward surface.
However, Mirimoto discloses in par. 0064, the surface enables a wedge effect to prevent the first conductor layer from coming outupward and improve reliability.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to change the surface of Mirimoto to have an inward surface to prevent from
coming outward and further improve reliability. Therefore, to employ having the inward surface as
claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claims 4-5, as applied to claim 3, Mirimoto discloses in Figure 2,
wherein the first side surface forms a first angle with respect to the third surface at the first end,
the first side surface forms a second angle with respect to the fourth surface at the second end, and
a sum of the first angle and the second angle is greater than 90°.
Mirimoto is silent on the sum being less than 175° and the second angle being 135° or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to set or select the second angle and the sum to optimize the wedge effect and
since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art.
233.
Regarding claims 14-15, as applied to claim 1, Mirimoto discloses in Figure 2, wherein the first
cover layer (31) includes an upper surface parallel to the first surface; wherein the first colored layer
(31) includes a lower surface parallel to the first surface.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 1, Mirimoto discloses in Figure 2,
wherein the first colored layer (31) is in contact with the fourth surface and the first side
surface.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirimoto et al (US
2020/0303813) in view of Li et al (US 2012/0050114) and further in view of Gupta et al (US
2020/0212536).
Regarding claims 16-17, Mirimoto discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly
recited in claims 1 and 14, except for wherein the first cover layer includes a layer that is in contact with
the first side surface and includes an upper surface including a step overlapping with the first side
surface in a plan view.
Gupta discloses in Figure 1, wherein the first cover layer (116) includes a layer that is in contact
with the first side surface (side surface of 104) and includes an upper surface including a step
overlapping with the first side surface in a plan view.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the cover layer of Mirimoto with the cover layer having upper surface as
taught by Gupta to achieve an optimal performance for the antenna. Therefore, to employ having the
cover layer as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirimoto et al (US
2020/0303813) in view of Li et al (US 2012/0050114) and further in view of Pei (CN 10293148).
Regarding claim 20, Mirimoto AND Li discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly
recited in claim 1, except for the first cover layer including a second colored layer that includes a
colorant.
Pei discloses in Figure 2, the first cover layer including a second colored layer (21) that includes a
colorant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the first cover layer of Mirimoto with the cover layer having a second
colored layer as taught by Pei to optimize the radiation characteristic and improve protection of cover
layer based on particular application or environment of use. Therefore, to employ having the first cover
layer as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claims 21-22, as applied to claim 20, Li (par. 0066) and Wu (par. 0012) disclose,
wherein the first cover layer includes a second pressure sensitive adhesive layer located between a first colored layer and the second colored layer;
wherein the first cover layer includes a first transparent layer located between the first colored
layer and the second colored layer.
Claims 23-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirimoto
et al (US 2020/0303813) in view of Li et al (US 2012/0050114) and further in view of Kaloi (US
3,947,850).
Regarding claim 23, Mirimoto discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in
claim 1, except for wherein the first conductor layer includes a patch and wiring connected to the patch,
and a slit is formed between the patch and the wiring.
Kaloi discloses in Figure 3A, wherein the first conductor layer includes a patch (18) and wiring
(18) connected to the patch, and a slit is formed between the patch (17) and the wiring (18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the first conductor layer of Mirimoto with the conductor layer being a
patch as taught by Kaloi to achieve a low cost, low profile and easily fabricated antenna. Therefore, to
employ having the conductor layer as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the
art.
Regarding claims 24, Kaloi discloses in Figure 3A and col. 2, lines 21-34,
wherein the patch (17) is configured to deal with transmission or reception of a radio wave
having a frequency of 300 MHz or higher.
Regarding claims 27-28, as applied to claim 1, Kaloi discloses in col. 1, lines 39-45, a
communication apparatus, comprising: a structure body that includes a surface; the antenna being
attached to the surface; wherein the surface of the structure body includes a curved surface, and the
antenna is attached to a curved surface.
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirimoto et al (US
2020/0303813) in view of Li et al (US 2012/0050114) and further in view of Wu et al (US 2022/0094048).
Regarding claims 25-26, Mirimoto discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly
recited in claim 1, except for a third conductor layer facing the fourth surface of the first conductor
layer; a third cover layer covering the third conductor layer, wherein the third cover layer includes a
colorant.
Wu discloses in Figure 10, a third conductor layer (106) facing the fourth surface of the first
conductor layer (108); a third cover layer (72) covering the third conductor layer (106), wherein the third
cover layer includes a colorant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of claimed invention to modify the antenna of Mirimoto with the antenna having a third conductor as taught by Wu to widen antenna bandwidth. Therefore, to employ having the third conductor as claimed
invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, teaching away, or no motivation to combine the references, 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). In this case, Morimoto teaches every feature of claim 1 including the first cover layer. Morimoto is only silent on the cover layer including colorant. However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to employ the teaching of Li in the cover layer of Morimoto by including colorant in the cover layer as taught by Li for aesthetically pleasing. Li discloses in par. 0073, the layer 84 may be formed from polymer or other suitable material.
In response to applicant’s argument that lack of teaching in Li for direct contact: it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., direct contact) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, DIMARY CRUZ LOPEZ can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights