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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the limit of 150 words.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0002], line 2, “vibration” should read “oscillation”. Same applies for any instances in the disclosure where the term “vibration” is used within the same context;
In [0034], line 9, “second conductor layer 7A” should read “second conductor layer 7”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 (lines 1-2) recite “more closely analogous to a straight line”, which does not have a clear meaning. The Specification ([0052], lines 4-5) recites: “When the expression “one edge is more closely analogous to a straight line than the other edge” is used as mentioned above, the one edge may be or may not be a straight line.”, which does not clarify the meaning of the term “more closely analogous” in a meaningful way. Further, the Specification ([0053]) recites: “Which one of the two edges is more closely analogous to a straight line may be determined as appropriate. In an example, an index value may be given as a value resulting from dividing a maximum deviation amount of each edge relative to an imaginary straight line connecting opposite ends of that edge by a length of the imaginary straight line. Two index values calculated for the two edges may be compared with each other, and the edge with the relatively small index value may be determined to be more closely analogous to a straight line.” However, the Specification fails to provide a value or a range of values for the index value which determine when an object is more closely analogous to a straight line. The term “relatively small index value” used herein is does not have a well-defined meaning. Therefore, the scope of the invention as claimed here is indefinite.
Claim 11 (line 9) recite “more closely analogous to a straight line”. Per the examiner’s argument above, the scope of the claimed invention is indefinite.
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 1-3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (US 20200287298 A1) in view of Johnson (US 5828340 A).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Ueda discloses (Fig. 5) an antenna comprising a conductive power feed patch (11), wherein the power feed patch comprises, in a plan view:
a first power feed-side edge and a first non-power feed-side edge positioned on opposite sides in a first direction in one-to-one relation (regarding a first power feed-side edge and a first non-power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 5 below);
a second power feed-side edge and a second non-power feed-side edge positioned on opposite sides in a second direction intersecting the first direction in one- to-one relation (regarding a second power feed-side edge and a second non-power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 5 below);
a first power feed point (P11) positioned on a side nearer to the first power feed- side edge; and
a second power feed point (P12) positioned on a side nearer to the second power feed-side edge.
Ueda does not teach the limitations:
wherein in the plan view, at least a portion of the first power feed-side edge expands outward and forms a protrusion,
wherein a width of the protrusion in the second direction gradually decreases toward a top of the protrusion, and
wherein the first power feed point is positioned nearer to the top of the protrusion than a middle of a hill slope of the protrusion in the first direction.
Johnson teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna (2), wherein at least a portion of a power feed-side edge (20) expands outward and forms a protrusion, wherein a width of the protrusion in the second direction gradually decreases toward a top of the protrusion, and wherein a power feed point is positioned nearer to the top of the protrusion than a middle of a hill slope of the protrusion in the first direction (regarding a protrusion and a power feed point, see annotated Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Johnson, so that at least a portion of the first power feed-side edge expands outward and forms a protrusion, wherein a width of the protrusion in the second direction gradually decreases toward a top of the protrusion, and wherein the first power feed point is positioned nearer to the top of the protrusion than a middle of a hill slope of the protrusion in the first direction. This modification would provide the best match for a given feeding configuration (i.e. impedance and type of feeding transmission line) and ground plane style (e.g. front side and/or back side) (see Johnson, col. 3, lines 36-41).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
Further, Ueda discloses (Fig. 5) a whole of the first non-power feed-side edge is more closely analogous to a straight line than a whole of the first power feed-side edge in the plan view (note that the first power feed-side edge has been modified per the teaching of Johnson to form a protrusion, which makes it not closely analogous to a straight line).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches antenna of claim 1.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein, in the plan view, edges of a portion of the protrusion on opposite sides in the second direction, the portion having the width gradually decreasing toward the top of the protrusion, include straight regions.
Johnson teaches (Fig. 1) edges (20) of a portion of the protrusion on opposite sides in the second direction, the portion having the width gradually decreasing toward the top of the protrusion, include straight regions (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Johnson, so that edges of a portion of the protrusion on opposite sides in the second direction, the portion having the width gradually decreasing toward the top of the protrusion, include straight regions. This modification would provide the best match for a given feeding configuration (i.e. impedance and type of feeding transmission line) and ground plane style (e.g. front side and/or back side) (see Johnson, col. 3, lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
Ueda discloses (Fig. 1) an antenna module (1) comprising: the antenna according to claim 1, and an IC (21) electrically connected to the first power feed point (P11) and the second power feed point (P12).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 15.
Ueda discloses (Fig. 1) an electronic device (101) comprising the antenna module (1) as modified according to claim 15. Further, Ueda discloses (0019] that the electronic device may be a mobile terminal such as a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, or the like, or a personal computer or the like having a communication function, which inherently comprise a housing accommodating all of the device components.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Guo et al. (“Multi-Functional Ultra-Wideband Monopole Antenna with High Frequency Selectivity”, ACES Journal, Vol. 33, No. 1, January 2018, hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach edges of a portion of the protrusion on opposite sides in the second direction, the portion having the width gradually decreasing toward the top of the protrusion, include curved regions expanding outward.
Guo teaches (Fig. 1 a) edges of a portion of the protrusion on opposite sides in the second direction, the portion having the width gradually decreasing toward the top of the protrusion, include curved regions expanding outward (regarding the protrusion and curved regions, see annotated Fig. 1a below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Gou, so that edges of a portion of the protrusion on opposite sides in the second direction, the portion having the width gradually decreasing toward the top of the protrusion, include curved regions expanding outward. This modification would have provided ultra-wideband antenna (Antenna A – see Guo, p. 38, col. 1, line 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
496
466
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Park et al. (US 7042401 B2, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein, in the plan view, the power feed patch comprises a power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the first power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the first power feed-side edge.
Park teaches (Fig. 2) a power feed patch (100) comprising a power feed-side slit (105) extending in parallel to a power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the power feed-side edge (regarding first power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Park, so that the power feed patch comprises a power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the first power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the first power feed-side edge. This modification would have provided a notch for creating two distinct frequency bands of operation of the antenna (see Park, Fig. 10 and col. 4, lines 56-59).
PNG
media_image4.png
596
750
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Jamlos et al. (“2.3 GHz –2.45 GHz Circular Polarization U-Slot Patch Antenna”, 2012 IEEE Symposium on Wireless Technology and Applications (ISWTA), Sept. 23-26, 2012).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 5.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the power feed-side slit is positioned on an inner side of the power feed patch than the first power feed point in the first direction, an edge of the power feed-side slit on same side as a center of the power feed patch in the first direction has a straight shape, and an edge of the power feed-side slit on same side as the first power feed point in the first direction has a shape protruding toward the first power feed point.
However, Park teaches (Fig. 2) the power feed-side slit (105) is positioned on an inner side of the power feed patch (100) than the power feed point in the first direction, and an edge of the power feed-side slit on same side as a center of the power feed patch in the first direction has a straight shape (regarding power feed point and center of the power feed patch, see annotated Fig. 2 above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Park, so that the power feed-side slit is positioned on an inner side of the power feed patch than the first power feed point in the first direction, and an edge of the power feed-side slit on same side as a center of the power feed patch in the first direction has a straight shape. This modification would have provided an ultra-wideband antenna with a notch for creating two distinct frequency bands of operation (see Park, Fig. 10 and col. 4, lines 56-59).
The modified Ueda does not teach an edge of the power feed-side slit on same side as the first power feed point in the first direction has a shape protruding toward the first power feed point.
Jamlos teaches (Fig. 1a) a power feed patch comprising a slit and a power feed point, wherein the edge of the slit on the same as the power feed point has a shape protruding toward the power feed point (regarding the power feed patch, the slit and the power feed point, see annotated Fig. 1a below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Jamlos, so that an edge of the power feed-side slit on same side as the first power feed point in the first direction has a shape protruding toward the first power feed point. This modification would increase the bandwidth of the antenna (see Jamlos, p. 122, col. 2, lines 2-6).
PNG
media_image5.png
600
808
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rao et al. (US 7598913 B2, hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the power feed patch comprises a non-power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the second non-power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the second non-power feed-side edge.
Rao teaches (Fig. 3) a power feed patch (36) comprising a non-power feed-side slit (A) extending in parallel to a non-power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the non-power feed-side edge (regarding the non-power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
662
778
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Rao, so that the power feed patch comprises a non-power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the second non-power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the second non-power feed-side edge. This modification would allow to change the effective electrical length and resonant frequency of the antenna (see Rao, col. 5, lines 4-7).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Park.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Ueda as applied to claim 7 teaches the antenna of claim 7.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein, in the plan view, the power feed patch comprises a power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the first power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the first power feed-side edge, and wherein the non-power feed-side slit is longer than the power feed-side slit.
Park teaches (Fig. 2) a power feed patch (100) comprising a power feed-side slit (105) extending in parallel to a power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the power feed-side edge (regarding first power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 2 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Park to add a power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the first power feed-side edge at a position on the side nearer to the first power feed-side edge. This modification would have provided a notch for creating two distinct frequency bands of operation of the antenna (see Park, Fig. 10 and col. 4, lines 56-59).
The modified Ueda does not teach that the non-power feed-side slit is longer than the power feed-side slit.
However, Rao teaches (Fig. 3) a non-power feed-side slit (A) which is longer than slits (B and C) positioned close to the power feed point (40) of the power feed patch (36) (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Rao, so that the non-power feed-side slit is longer than the power feed-side slit in order to achieve and to finely adjust the desired resonance frequency of the antenna and to improve the antenna impedance matching (see Rao, col. 5, lines 4-11).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified Ueda as applied to claim 8 teaches the antenna of claim 8.
The modified Ueda does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a center of an entire length of the non-power feed-side slit is positioned on a side nearer to the first power feed-side edge than a center of an entire length of the second non-power feed-side edge.
However, Rao teaches (Fig. 3) a power feed patch (36) comprising slits (B and C) close to and parallel to non-power feed-side edges, wherein a center of an entire length of the slit is positioned on a side nearer to the power feed-side edge than a center of an entire length of a non-power feed-side edge (see annotated Fig. 3 above).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Rao, so that a center of an entire length of the non-power feed-side slit is positioned on a side nearer to the first power feed-side edge than a center of an entire length of the second non-power feed-side edge in order to achieve and to finely adjust the desired resonance frequency of the antenna and to improve the antenna impedance matching (see Rao, col. 5, lines 4-11).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Rao.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Ueda discloses (Fig. 5) an antenna comprising a conductive power feed patch (11), wherein the power feed patch comprises, in a plan view:
a first power feed-side edge and a first non-power feed-side edge positioned on opposite sides in a first direction in one-to-one relation (regarding a first power feed-side edge and a first non-power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 1 above);
a second power feed-side edge and a second non-power feed-side edge positioned on opposite sides in a second direction intersecting the first direction in one- to-one relation (regarding a second power feed-side edge and a second non-power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 1 above);
a first power feed point (P11) positioned on a side nearer to the first power feed- side edge; and
a second power feed point (P12) positioned on a side nearer to the second power feed-side edge,
Ueda does not teach the limitation wherein the power feed patch further comprises a non-power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the second non-power feed-side edge at a position on a side nearer to the second non-power feed-side edge.
Rao teaches (Fig. 3) a power feed patch (36) comprising a non-power feed-side slit (A) extending in parallel to a non-power feed-side edge at a position on a side nearer to the non-power feed-side edge (regarding the non-power feed-side edge, see annotated Fig. 3 above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Rao, so that the power feed patch further comprises a non-power feed-side slit extending in parallel to the second non-power feed-side edge at a position on a side nearer to the second non-power feed-side edge. This modification would allow to change the effective electrical length and resonant frequency of the antenna (see Rao, col. 5, lines 4-7).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Duzdar et al. (US 7164385 B2, hereinafter Duzdar).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Ueda does not teach the antenna further comprising a conductive non-power feed patch positioned opposite to the power feed patch,
wherein the non-power feed patch includes, in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way, four edges extending along the first power feed-side edge, the first non-power feed-side edge, the second power feed-side edge, and the second non-power feed-side edge in one-to-one relation, and
a whole of an edge of the non-power feed patch along the first power feed-side edge is more closely analogous to a straight line than a whole of the first power feed-side edge.
Duzdar teaches (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 4-16) an antenna (10) comprising a power feed patch (14) and a non-power feed patch (16) wherein the non-power feed patch includes, in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way, four edges extending along the respective edges of the power feed patch, and a whole of each edge of the non-power feed patch along corresponding edge of power feed patch is more closely analogous to a straight line.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Duzdar, to add a non-power feed patch to the antenna, wherein the non-power feed patch includes, in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way, four edges extending along the first power feed-side edge, the first non-power feed-side edge, the second power feed-side edge, and the second non-power feed-side edge in one-to-one relation, and a whole of an edge of the non-power feed patch along the first power feed-side edge is more closely analogous to a straight line than a whole of the first power feed-side edge (note that in the modified Ueda the first power feed-side edge has a protrusion and, thus, is not closely analogous to a straight line). This modification would allow the antenna to operate in two different frequency bands (see Duzdar, col. 2, lines 4-16).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Duzdar.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 5.
The modified Ueda does not teach the antenna further comprising a conductive non-power feed patch positioned opposite to the power feed patch, wherein the non-power feed patch overlaps at least a portion of the power feed-side slit in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way.
Duzdar teaches (Fig. 2) an antenna (10) comprising a power feed patch (14) and a non-power feed patch (16) wherein the non-power feed patch covers the area of the entire power feed patch.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Duzdar, to add a non-power feed patch to the antenna, wherein the non-power feed patch overlaps at least a portion of the power feed-side slit in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way. This modification would allow the antenna to operate in two different frequency bands (see Duzdar, col. 2, lines 4-16).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Duzdar.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 7.
The modified Ueda does not teach the antenna further comprising a conductive non-power feed patch positioned opposite to the power feed patch, wherein the non-power feed patch overlaps at least a portion of the non-power feed-side slit in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way.
Duzdar teaches (Fig. 2) an antenna (10) comprising a power feed patch (14) and a non-power feed patch (16) wherein the non-power feed patch covers the area of the entire power feed patch.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Duzdar, to add a non-power feed patch to the antenna, wherein the non-power feed patch overlaps at least a portion of the non-power feed-side slit in a plan view when viewed in a seeing-through way. This modification would allow the antenna to operate in two different frequency bands (see Duzdar, col. 2, lines 4-16).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Ueda as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Greiser (US 4063246 A).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified Ueda teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Ueda does not teach the antenna further comprising a ground pattern positioned on same plane as the power feed patch and surrounding the power feed patch.
Greiser teaches (Fig. 8) an antenna comprising a power feed patch (112) and a ground pattern (110) positioned on same plane as the power feed patch and surrounding the power feed patch.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ueda to incorporate the teachings of Duzdar, to add a ground pattern (110) positioned on same plane as the power feed patch and surrounding the power feed patch. This modification would provide means to form a coplanar strip line transmission line which is used to feed electrical signals to the power feed patch (see Greiser, col. 5, lines 10-11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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, Dimary 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845