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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 8th 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 8th 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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(s) 1, 4-13, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. (US 20220192008A1) in view of Ram’ 2013 et al. (NPL from RFIC Lab of Changwon University and IDS Reference) and Hafeneister (EP 2736053 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmed et al. discloses an antenna arrangement for an electronic key comprises (Vehicle access system includes a key fob 1032 that comprises an antenna arrangement from figures 1-9; Paragraph 98-99 and Figure 10 of Ahmed et al.)
an antenna (Portable network device 14 which may be a key fob includes an antenna 1414 which may be an antenna structure as disclosed in figures 1-9; Paragraph 99 and 123 as well as figure 14 of Ahmed et al.); and
an antenna circuit configured to control the antenna (Antenna system may comprise circuit components including a control module 1402 may be configured to control the antenna; Paragraphs 31 and 124-126 as well as figure 14 of Ahmed et al.); wherein
the antenna and the antenna circuit are arranged on a printed circuit board (Antenna 304, RF circuit, and other electrical components like the control module may be arranged on a printed circuit board; Paragraph 72 and 90 as well as figure 3 of Ahmed et al.);
the antenna arrangement is configured to transmit and receive ultra-wide band signals or signals according to a Bluetooth standard (Antennas discloses can be designed to transmit or receive in Bluetooth or ultra-wide band standards; Paragraph 28 and 95), and
the antenna circuit comprises a filter arrangement configured to filter signals received by and to be sent by the antenna (Transceiver unit 1408, which may also be disposed on the PCB, may be a part of the antenna structure and includes a filter arrangement in the form of bandpass filters 1518 or 1532 which filter received or transmitted signals; Paragraphs 127-129 and figures 14-15 of Ahmed et al.)
Ahmed et al. fails to explicitly disclose the filter arrangement comprises a capacitance formed by at least two conducting paths formed on the printed circuit board and wherein the capacitance comprises a bi-spiral shape comprising a first spiral conducting path and a second spiral conducting path spiraling into each other for at least three full turns and wherein the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction of between 0.1 and 0.2mm, wherein the horizontal direction is a direction parallel to a surface of the printed circuit board on which the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path are formed.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a constant width in a horizontal direction of between 0.1 and 0.2mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose a filter arrangement comprises a capacitance formed by at least two conducting paths formed on the printed circuit board (Band Pass filter comprises 2 conductive spiral arms now labeled Spiral 1 and Spiral 2 form a capacitance and filter is formed on a Teflon substrate which may serve as a PCB; Abstract and Pg. 1-6 as well as figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction, wherein the horizontal direction is a direction parallel to a surface of the printed circuit board on which the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path are formed (Spiral arms 1 and 2 can have a widths S1-S5 which can be between .2mm – 1.3mm, where this width direction is parallel to the surface of the substrate one of the widths s1 can be .2mm as seen in figure 5 wherein widths can be varied to obtain the desires resonant frequency/ bandwidth and figure 3 shows a configuration of spiral conducing paths of constant width ; Pg. 2-6 as well figure 1 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Hafeneister also discloses wherein the capacitance comprises a bi-spiral shape comprising a first spiral conducting path and a second spiral conducting path spiraling into each other for at least three full turns (Filter for radio broadcast application for vehicles comprise a capacitor connected coil formed by two interleaved spirals wherein said spirals spiral into each other for at least three full turns and generally have a constant width throughout; Paragraph 1-25 and 62-64 as well as figure 17a of Hafeneister) and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction (Filter for radio broadcast application for vehicles comprise a capacitor connected coil formed by two interleaved spirals wherein said spirals spiral into each other for at least three full turns and generally have a constant width throughout; Paragraph 1-25 and 62-64 as well as figure 17a of Hafeneister).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught Ahmed et al. to have a filter arrangement comprises a capacitance formed by at least two conducting paths formed on the printed circuit board and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction, wherein the horizontal direction is a direction parallel to a surface of the printed circuit board on which the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path are formed as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. , 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
The motivation stems from wanting to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and since the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and specifically varying widths to obtain the desired frequency/bandwidth (Pg. 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught Ahmed et al. and Ram’ 2013 et al. to have the capacitance comprises a bi-spiral shape comprising a first spiral conducting path and a second spiral conducting path spiraling into each other for at least three full turns and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction as taught by Hafeneister since the capacitance value depends on the width, length, and number of turns used in the spirals.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
544
535
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
502
1039
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
351
707
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.14mm.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width in the horizontal direction of 0.14mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction (Spiral arms 1 and 2 can have a widths S1-S5 which can be between .2mm – 1.3mm, where this width direction is parallel to the surface of the substrate one of the widths s1 can be .2mm as seen in figure 5 wherein widths can be varied to obtain the desires resonant frequency/ bandwidth and figure 3 shows a configuration of spiral conducing paths of constant width ; Pg. 2-5 as well figure 1 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.14mm as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 6, Paragraph 2 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and specifically varying widths to obtain the desired frequency/bandwidth (Pg. 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first spiral conducting path is coupled to a first conducting path, and the second spiral conducting path is coupled to a second conducting path.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first spiral conducting path is coupled to a first conducting path, and the second spiral conducting path is coupled to a second conducting path (Spiral arms 1 and 2 can be coupled to conducting paths now labeled Path 1 and Path 2 as seen in annotated figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught Ahmed et al. to have the first spiral conducting path be coupled to a first conducting path, and the second spiral conducting path be coupled to a second conducting path to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of between 0.5 and 1.5mm.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width in the horizontal direction of between 0.5 and 1.5mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction (Paths 1 and 2 can have a width W1 that is 2.1mm in a horizontal direction; Pg. 6 and figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of between 0.5 and 1.5mm as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.9mm.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width in the horizontal direction of 0.9mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction (Paths 1 and 2 can have a width W1 that is 2.1mm in a horizontal direction; Pg. 6 and figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.9mm as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path are 50Ω microstrip lines.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path are 50Ω microstrip lines (Narrow tuning stubs, aka path 1 and 2, are maintained at a 50omh impedance when coupled to the ports and thus serve as 50hom microstrip lines; Abstract of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first conducting path and the second conducting path be 50Ω microstrip lines as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the at least two conducting paths comprise copper.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the at least two conducting paths comprise copper (Antenna filter with its conducting paths are made from copper as seen in figure 10 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the at least two conducting paths comprise copper as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to disclose the at least two conducting paths have a thickness in a vertical direction (z) of between 0.4 and 0.6mm, wherein the vertical direction (z) is a direction perpendicular to the surface of the printed circuit board on which the conducting paths are formed.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to disclose a thickness in a vertical direction (z) of between 0.4 and 0.6mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the at least two conducting paths have a thickness in a vertical direction (z), wherein the vertical direction (z) is a direction perpendicular to the surface of the printed circuit board on which the conducting paths are formed (Filter is formed on surface of substrate with a thickness of .504mm with a photolithographic and etching technique resulting in a filter with a thickness, at the very least, less than the thickness of the substrate wherein the thickness direction is perpendicular to the surface of the substrate; Pg. 1-6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the at least two conducting paths have a thickness in a vertical direction (z) of between 0.4 and 0.6mm, wherein the vertical direction (z) is a direction perpendicular to the surface of the printed circuit board on which the conducting paths are formed as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Ahmed et al. further discloses the antenna comprises a conducting path on the printed circuit board (Antenna arrangement includes a transmission line 350 and antenna 304 that may be stamped or be a PCB trace being a conductive path on the PCB on which it is mounted; Paragraph 82-83 of Ahmed et al.).
Regarding Claim 12, Ahmed et al. further discloses the antenna is a monopole antenna or an inverted-F antenna (Antenna 304 may be a monopole antenna in the form of stamped, PCB trace, or flat electrode type antenna or may be any other type of antenna; Paragraph 82-83 of Ahmed et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Ahmed et al. further discloses an electronic vehicle key comprising an antenna arrangement the antenna arrangement comprising (Vehicle access system includes a key fob 1032 that comprises an antenna arrangement from figures 1-9; Paragraph 98-99 and Figure 10 of Ahmed et al.)
an antenna (Portable network device 14 which may be a key fob includes an antenna 1414 which may be an antenna structure as disclosed in figures 1-9; Paragraph 99 and 123 as well as figure 14 of Ahmed et al.); and
an antenna circuit configured to control the antenna (Antenna system may comprise circuit components including a control module 1402 may be configured to control the antenna; Paragraphs 31 and 124-126 as well as figure 14 of Ahmed et al.); wherein
the antenna and the antenna circuit are arranged on a printed circuit board (Antenna 304, RF circuit, and other electrical components like the control module may be arranged on a printed circuit board; Paragraph 72 and 90 as well as figure 3 of Ahmed et al.);
the antenna arrangement is configured to transmit and receive ultra-wide band signals or signals according to a Bluetooth standard (Antennas discloses can be designed to transmit or receive in Bluetooth or ultra-wide band standards; Paragraph 28 and 95), and
the antenna circuit comprises a filter arrangement configured to filter signals received by and to be sent by the antenna (Transceiver unit 1408, which may also be disposed on the PCB, may be a part of the antenna structure and includes a filter arrangement in the form of bandpass filters 1518 or 1532 which filter received or transmitted signals; Paragraphs 127-129 and figures 14-15 of Ahmed et al.)
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a constant width in a horizontal direction of between 0.1 and 0.2mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose a filter arrangement comprises a capacitance formed by at least two conducting paths formed on the printed circuit board (Band Pass filter comprises 2 conductive spiral arms now labeled Spiral 1 and Spiral 2 form a capacitance and filter is formed on a Teflon substrate which may serve as a PCB; Abstract and Pg. 1-6 as well as figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction, wherein the horizontal direction is a direction parallel to a surface of the printed circuit board on which the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path are formed (Spiral arms 1 and 2 can have a widths S1-S5 which can be between .2mm – 1.3mm, where this width direction is parallel to the surface of the substrate one of the widths s1 can be .2mm as seen in figure 5 wherein widths can be varied to obtain the desires resonant frequency/ bandwidth and figure 3 shows a configuration of spiral conducing paths of constant width ; Pg. 2-6 as well figure 1 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Hafeneister also discloses wherein the capacitance comprises a bi-spiral shape comprising a first spiral conducting path and a second spiral conducting path spiraling into each other for at least three full turns (Filter for radio broadcast application for vehicles comprise a capacitor connected coil formed by two interleaved spirals wherein said spirals spiral into each other for at least three full turns and generally have a constant width throughout; Paragraph 1-25 and 62-64 as well as figure 17a of Hafeneister) and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction (Filter for radio broadcast application for vehicles comprise a capacitor connected coil formed by two interleaved spirals wherein said spirals spiral into each other for at least three full turns and generally have a constant width throughout; Paragraph 1-25 and 62-64 as well as figure 17a of Hafeneister).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught Ahmed et al. to have a filter arrangement comprises a capacitance formed by at least two conducting paths formed on the printed circuit board and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction, wherein the horizontal direction is a direction parallel to a surface of the printed circuit board on which the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path are formed as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. , 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from wanting to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and since the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and specifically varying widths to obtain the desired frequency/bandwidth (Pg. 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
It would have been further obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught Ahmed et al. and Ram’ 2013 et al. to have the capacitance comprises a bi-spiral shape comprising a first spiral conducting path and a second spiral conducting path spiraling into each other for at least three full turns and the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a constant width in a horizontal direction as taught by Hafeneister since the capacitance value depends on the width, length, and number of turns used in the spirals.
Regarding Claim 16, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.14mm.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width in the horizontal direction of 0.14mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction (Spiral arms 1 and 2 can have a widths S1-S5 which can be between .2mm – 1.3mm, where this width direction is parallel to the surface of the substrate one of the widths s1 can be .2mm as seen in figure 5 wherein widths can be varied to obtain the desires resonant frequency/ bandwidth and figure 3 shows a configuration of spiral conducing paths of constant width ; Pg. 2-5 as well figure 1 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first spiral conducting path and the second spiral conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.14mm as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.) and specifically varying widths to obtain the desired frequency/bandwidth (Pg. 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first spiral conducting path is coupled to a first conducting path, and the second spiral conducting path is coupled to a second conducting path.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first spiral conducting path is coupled to a first conducting path, and the second spiral conducting path is coupled to a second conducting path (Spiral arms 1 and 2 can be coupled to conducting paths now labeled Path 1 and Path 2 as seen in annotated figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught Ahmed et al. to have the first spiral conducting path be coupled to a first conducting path, and the second spiral conducting path be coupled to a second conducting path to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 18, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of between 0.5 and 1.5mm.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width in the horizontal direction of between 0.5 and 1.5mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction (Paths 1 and 2 can have a width W1 that is 2.1mm in a horizontal direction; Pg. 6 and figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of between 0.5 and 1.5mm as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., 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 routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.9mm.
Although Ram’ 2013 et al. fails to explicitly disclose a width in the horizontal direction of 0.9mm. Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction (Paths 1 and 2 can have a width W1 that is 2.1mm in a horizontal direction; Pg. 6 and figure 1 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first conducting path and the second conducting path each have a width in the horizontal direction of 0.9mm as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al., since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).The motivation stems from the fact that the size and physical dimensions of the filter affect its operating frequency (Pg. 4 and 6 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path are 50Ω microstrip lines.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the first conducting path and the second conducting path are 50Ω microstrip lines (Narrow tuning stubs, aka path 1 and 2, are maintained at a 50omh impedance when coupled to the ports and thus serve as 50hom microstrip lines; Abstract of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the first conducting path and the second conducting path be 50Ω microstrip lines as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 21, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the at least two conducting paths comprise copper.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the at least two conducting paths comprise copper (Antenna filter with its conducting paths are made from copper as seen in figure 10 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the at least two conducting paths comprise copper as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 22, Ahmed et al. fails to disclose the at least two conducting paths comprise copper.
However, Ram’ 2013 et al. does disclose the at least two conducting paths comprise copper (Antenna filter with its conducting paths are made from copper as seen in figure 10 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Ahmed et al. to have the at least two conducting paths comprise copper as taught by Ram’ 2013 et al. to create a filter with strong capacitive coupling and maximize current at to enhance transmission at resonant band and attenuate outside this band (Abstract and Pg. 1-2 and 4 of Ram’ 2013 et al.).
Regarding Claim 23, Ahmed et al. further discloses the antenna comprises a conducting path on the printed circuit board (Antenna arrangement includes a transmission line 350 and antenna 304 that may be stamped or be a PCB trace being a conductive path on the PCB on which it is mounted; Paragraph 82-83 of Ahmed et al.).
Regarding Claim 24, Ahmed et al. further discloses the antenna is a monopole antenna or an inverted-F antenna (Antenna 304 may be a monopole antenna in the form of stamped, PCB trace, or flat electrode type antenna or may be any other type of antenna; Paragraph 82-83 of Ahmed et al.).
Additional Comments Regarding The Claim Rejections
Examiner’s note – Regarding claims 1 and 13, the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue the following:
“Ram's disclosed width range (0.6-1.3 mm) is only for a particular filter (likely operating at a lower frequency than UWB). The claimed range of 0.1-0.2 mm is significantly smaller (outside Ram's range by a factor of ~3x). If nothing in Ram or other prior art suggests exploring such small trace widths, this isn't a case of simply optimizing within a known range. It's more akin to finding that a much smaller width was necessary or optimal for a new application (UWB)-and that would not be making a routine design choice.
Unless the prior art provides some hint that dramatically narrower traces would be needed or advantageous, it would not have been obvious to go to the 0.1-0.2 mm range or
0.14 mm value being claimed. The prior art could have assumed such a narrow trace would be impractical on standard PCBs, thus deterring their use. This case is more like situations where a parameter was not recognized as a result-effective variable in the prior art, or where the optimized value produces an unexpected result, in which cases the Aller/Boesch rules do not apply.
The rationale proposed by the Office Action essentially says that since width affects frequency, one would tune it as needed. However, this sidesteps the question of how a person of skill would know that the 0.1-0.2 mm range or 0.14 mm values is the right order of magnitude for a UWB. Taking the later value as an example, 0.14 mm is extremely narrow for PCB traces, near the limits of typical PCB fabrication and significantly narrower than the spiral traces in many filters. If typical UWB antennas or filters did not use such fine traces (perhaps because they instead used discrete components or chips), a skilled person might not immediately gravitate to that solution. The Applicant asserts that the need to use such a narrow trace - to achieve a very compact high-frequency capacitance - was not appreciated in the prior art. ”
Applicant's arguments filed on April 8th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Aller notes that when the general conditions are disclosed and Boesch notes a result effective variable. As taught by Ram et al., the width is a result effective variable that when altered would affect the resonant frequency. Furthermore the general conditions of a claim are the fact that Ram notes a range of possible widths as well as teaching that the width is chosen based on the operating frequency desired. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would know that for different frequency of operations, like UWB, that one would need to vary the width wherein it is also known that higher bands mean less wavelengths aka smaller resonating elements thus going down to .1-.2mm for operation in higher bands would be obvious based on the relationship between size of components and there resonating frequencies.
Nevertheless, the examiner has also found a new prior art Ram’ 2013 et al. as disclosed in the above rejection that encompasses the same subject matter of the original Ram et al. but also further discloses a width of .2mm for the spiral conductors (Width s1 = .2mm as seen in figure 6-7) as well as motivation specifically noting that varying the width allows one to obtain a desired resonant frequency. Since this discloses a range of .2mm, this meet the limitation of claim 1 on its own but is also much closer to the desired range of .1mm-.2mm such that it Aller/Boesch would apply with the motivation provided since the range of experimentation in this would be much smaller. It is also noted that changing the constant width of the conductors would be a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
WO 2020167627 A1 (BOLIN THOMAS et al.) relates to a configuration of an antenna structure for a key fob that comprises control units and filters.
US 20140266508 A1 (Song; Young Kyu et al.) relates to a configuration of a bandpass filter comprising spiral arms that spiral into each other.
“Interdigital-Inductors Based Bandpass Filter for Wireless Local Area Network Applications” (NPL by Ram Krishna Maharjan) discloses a spiral configuration or filter wherein the widths can be varied.
“A High Performance Miniaturized on chip 25 GHz Narrow Bandpass Filter for 5G Radio Access Applications” (NPL by V Raghunadh Machavaram, Bheema Rao Nistal) discloses a filter with a spiral configuration wherein said spirals are conductors with a given width, spacing, and thickness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 E 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
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights