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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner appreciates the time and effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case. The Applicant argues in page 6 that Wang fails to disclose “the coupling unit comprises a coupling branch for increasing a radiation area of the antenna” capable of increasing the antenna radiation area. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang et al. disclose coupling branches including 37c and 38c, both for increasing the radiation area of the antenna, 32c (Para. 0053, Lines 1-5).
In addition, the Applicant argues in page 10 that “There is no motivation in Wang or in the prior art as a whole for one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the fixed capacitor structure 36 into the independent, adjustable coupling unit recited in Claim 1”. Examiner disagrees. As disclose by Wang, the width of an electromagnetic coupling gap is often adjusted to determine the electromagnetic coupling (Para, 0040, Lines 10-14).
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20180351238) in view of Kim et al. (US 20120050121).
Regarding claim 1:
Wang et al. disclose (in Figs. 1 and 6) an antenna (100c) for a mobile terminal, comprising: a first radiation unit (defined by 34c and 39c), a second radiation unit (defined by 32c, 37c and 38c adjacent to 37c), a coupling unit (defined by 36c and 38c), and a chip unit (defined by 20 in Fig. 1), wherein: the first radiation unit (defined by 34c and 39c), the second radiation unit (defined by 32c, 37c and 38c adjacent to 37c), the coupling unit (defined by 36c and 38c), and the chip unit (20) are arranged on a mainboard (defined by 200 in Fig. 1), a terminal of the first radiation unit (defined by 34c and 39c) is provided with a feeding point (defined by 40 in Fig. 1), the feeding point (40) is connected to the chip unit (20), another terminal of the first radiation unit (defined by 34c and 39c) is non-electrically connected to a terminal of the second radiation unit (defined by 32c, 37c and 38c adjacent to 37c) through the coupling unit (defined by 36c and 38c), the first radiation unit (defined by 34c and 39c) is not grounded (See Figs.), and another terminal of the second radiation unit (defined by 32c, 37c and 38c adjacent to 37c) is directly grounded (via 32c; See Fig. 6); and the coupling unit (defined by 36c and 38c) comprises a coupling branch (38c) for increasing a radiation area of the antenna (100c).
Wang et al. are silent on that the feeding point is without a matching circuit arranged between the feeding point and the chip unit; and the coupling unit comprises a left coupling part and a right coupling part, the left coupling part and the right coupling part intersecting with each other via an intersection structure with a non-electrically connection gap, and a width of the non-electrically connection gap and the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part are adjustable to be configured according to actual requirements.
Kim et al. disclose (Fig. 3) the feeding point (along 306) is without a matching circuit arranged between the feeding point (along 306) and the chip unit (the feed connected to 306); and the coupling unit (350) comprises a left coupling part (defined by 308) and a right coupling part (defined by 310), the left coupling part (defined by 308) and the right coupling part (defined by 310) intersecting with each other via an intersection structure (defined by 350) with a non-electrically connection gap (between 308 and 310), and a width of the non-electrically connection gap and the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part are adjustable to be configured according to actual requirements (Para. 0036, Lines 1-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feeding point is without a matching circuit arranged between the feeding point and the chip unit; and the coupling unit comprises a left coupling part and a right coupling part, the left coupling part and the right coupling part intersecting with each other via an intersection structure with a non-electrically connection gap, and a width of the non-electrically connection gap and the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part are adjustable to be configured according to actual requirements as taught by Kim et al. into the device of Wang et al. for the benefit of obtaining a structure spaced apart from one another to a predetermined distance at predetermined portions, so as to adjust electromagnetic coupling (Para. 0035, Lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 9:
Wang et al. disclose the first radiation unit (defined by 34c and 39c), the second radiation unit (defined by 32c, 37c and 38c adjacent to 37c) and the coupling unit (defined by 36c and 38c) form a loop antenna (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 13:
Wang et al. disclose a mobile terminal, comprising the antenna for a mobile terminal (See Abstract; Para. 0002, Lines 1-2) according to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20180351238) in view of Kim et al. (US 20120050121).
Regarding claim 2:
Wang et al. (in Figs. 1 and 6) are silent on that the left coupling part is connected to a terminal of the second radiation unit, the right coupling part is connected to a terminal of the first radiation unit.
Wang et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) the left coupling part (37) is connected to a terminal of the second radiation unit (32), the right coupling part (35) is connected to a terminal of the first radiation unit (34), and the left coupling part (37).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the left coupling part is connected to a terminal of the second radiation unit, the right coupling part is connected to a terminal of the first radiation unit as taught by the embodiment in Figs. 4 and 5 into the device of Figs. 1 and 6 for the benefit of achieving a capacitor structure thereby reducing a length of the antenna, and further reducing a volume of the mobile terminal (Para. 0021, Lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 4:
Wang et al. (in Figs. 1 and 6) are silent on that the intersection structure (defined as 36b) of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a mutually adapted concave-convex structures, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the mutually adapted concave-convex structures.
Wang et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) disclose the intersection structure (defined as 36b) the left coupling part (35b) and the right coupling part (37b) is a mutually adapted concave-convex structures (See e.g., Fig. 5), and the first radiation unit (34) and the second radiation unit (32) are connected to each other through the mutually adapted concave-convex structures (See Fig.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a mutually adapted concave-convex structures, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the mutually adapted concave-convex structures as taught by the embodiment in Figs. 4 and 5 into the device of Figs. 1 and 6 for the benefit of achieving a capacitor structure thereby reducing a length of the antenna, and further reducing a volume of the mobile terminal (Para. 0021, Lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 5:
Wang et al. (in Figs. 1 and 6) are silent on that the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a serrated structure, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the serrated structures.
Wang et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) disclose the intersection structure (defined as 36b) of the left coupling part (35b) and the right coupling part (37b) is a serrated structure (defined by the wiggly rectangular structure of 36b), and the first radiation unit (34) and the second radiation unit (32) are connected to each other through the serrated structures (defined by the wiggly rectangular structure of 36b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a serrated structure, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the serrated structures as taught by the embodiment in Figs. 4 and 5 into the device of Figs. 1 and 6 for the benefit of achieving a capacitor structure thereby reducing a length of the antenna, and further reducing a volume of the mobile terminal (Para. 0021, Lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 7:
Wang et al. (in Figs. 1 and 6) are silent on that the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a U-shape structure with openings opposite each other, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the U-shape structures with openings opposite each other.
Wang et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) the intersection structure (defined as 36b) of the left coupling part (35b) and the right coupling part (37b) is a U-shape structures (See e.g., Fig. 5) with openings opposite each other, and the first radiation unit (34) and the second radiation unit (32) are connected to each other through the U-shape structures with openings opposite each other (See Fig.s).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a U-shape structure with openings opposite each other, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the U-shape structures with openings opposite each other as taught by the embodiment in Figs. 4 and 5 into the device of Figs. 1 and 6 for the benefit of achieving a capacitor structure thereby reducing a length of the antenna, and further reducing a volume of the mobile terminal (Para. 0021, Lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 8:
Wang et al. (in Figs. 1 and 6) are silent on that the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a helical structure, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the helical structures.
Wang et al. disclose (in Figs. 4 and 5) the intersection structure of the left coupling part (35b) and the right coupling part (37b) is a helical structures (See e.g., Fig. 5), and the first radiation unit (34) and the second radiation unit (32) are connected to each other through the helical structures (See Figs.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to implement the intersection structure of the left coupling part and the right coupling part is a helical structure, and the first radiation unit and the second radiation unit are connected to each other through the helical structures as taught by the embodiment in Figs. 4 and 5 into the device of Figs. 1 and 6 for the benefit of achieving a capacitor structure thereby reducing a length of the antenna, and further reducing a volume of the mobile terminal (Para. 0021, Lines 5-10).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20180351238) in view of Kim et al. (US 20120050121) and in further in view of Hsiao et al. (US 20190214730).
Regarding claims 6 and 12:
Wang et al. are silent on that the serrated structures are arranged with equal space distances, and a distance between adjacent serrations of each of the serrated structures ranges from 0.3 mm to 1 mm as required by claim 6; and a width of the gap ranges from 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm as required by claim 12.
Hsiao et al. disclose (e.g. in Fig. 8) the serrated structures (12A, 121 and 122) are arranged with equal space distances (See Fig.), and a distance between adjacent serrations of each of the serrated structures (12A, 121 and 122) ranges from 0.3 mm to 1 mm (See Claim 10); a width of the gap ranges from 0.2 mm to 1.2 mm (See Claim 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the gap within the claimed range as taught by Hsiao et al. into the device of Wang et al. for the benefit of allowing the two radiating portions is used to excite a resonant mode having a 0.25-wavelength of the loop antenna, so that the loop antenna operates in at least two frequency bands of a lower frequency band and a higher frequency band (Para. 0035, Lines 2-6).
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 BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights