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 Amendment
The amendment filed 5/23/25 has been fully considered and has been entered. The amendment has overcome each and every objection set forth in the non-final office action mailed 2/26/25. These objections are herein withdrawn.
Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 7-9, 11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0256802) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0346164).
Regarding claim 1, Wong et al. teaches (Fig. 1) a slot antenna structure comprising: an antenna unit (16); and a metal unit (111) electrically connected to the antenna unit (slots of 111 are fed by, thus electrically activated by, 16) and comprising: a first slot (13) having a first length along a direction (see Fig. 1); a second slot (14) having a second length along the direction and spaced at a first distance from the first slot (see Fig. 1); and a third slot (15) having a third length along the direction and spaced at a second distance apart from the second slot (see Fig. 1), wherein the first length is greater than the second length, and the third length is greater than the first length (see Fig. 1; ¶21).
Wong does not teach wherein the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence.
Kim et al. teaches (Figs. 1-11C) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (1142) comprising: a first slot (see Fig. 11C, top 1144) having a first length along a direction (see Fig. 11C), a second slot (middle 1144) having a second length along the direction and spaced a first distance apart from the first slot (see Fig. 11C); and a third slot (1143) having a third length along the direction and spaced a second distance apart from the second slot (see Fig. 11C); wherein the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence, the first length is greater than the second length, and the third length is greater than the first length (see Fig. 11C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna of Wong such that the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence, employing the teachings of Kim.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the capacity to visibly conceal the slot antenna structure within an encompassing device (Kim, ¶189 lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 3, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1.
Wong does not teach wherein the first length is greater than or equal to 16 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, the second length is greater than or equal to 11 mm and less than or equal to 15 mm, and the third length is greater than or equal to 43 mm and less than or equal to 47 mm; however, Wong does teach a length of each of the first slot, second slot, and third slot is determined in order to achieve a desired operating frequency of the antenna unit (¶21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that the first length is greater than or equal to 16 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, the second length is greater than or equal to 11 mm and less than or equal to 15 mm, and the third length is greater than or equal to 43 mm and less than or equal to 47 mm, employing the teachings of Wong, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of each slot with respect to a desired operating frequency of the antenna unit (Wong, ¶21).
Regarding claim 7, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1, further comprising a feeding point disposed on the antenna unit (16 comprises a feeding point), wherein a position of the feeding point corresponds to the third slot (16 is construed as feeding each of the slots 13-15, thus comprises a feeding point at a position which corresponds to the third slot 15).
Regarding claim 8, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein a sum of the first length, the second length, the third length, the first distance, and the second distance is less than or equal to 84 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since such modification would have involved 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). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For example, the first length, second length, and third length may be made arbitrarily small such that the antenna is operable on higher frequency bands, and the sum of the first length, the second length, the third length, the first distance, and the second distance is less than or equal to 84 mm or any arbitrary margin.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the slot antenna structure as a multiband antenna on desired frequencies (Wong, ¶2).
Regarding claim 9, Wong et al. teaches (Fig. 1) a slot antenna structure comprising: an antenna unit (16); and a metal unit (111) electrically connected to the antenna unit (slots of 111 are fed by, thus electrically activated by, 16) and comprising: a first slot (13) having a first length along a direction (see Fig. 1); a second slot (14) having a second length along the direction and spaced at a first distance from the first slot (see Fig. 1); and a third slot (15) having a third length along the direction and spaced at a second distance apart from the second slot (see Fig. 1), wherein any one of the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot is a closed slot (15 is a closed slot), and the first length, the second length, and the third length are different (see Fig. 1; ¶21).
Wong does not teach wherein the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence.
Kim et al. teaches (Figs. 1-11C) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (1142) comprising: a first slot (see Fig. 11C, top 1144) having a first length along a direction (see Fig. 11C), a second slot (middle 1144) having a second length along the direction and spaced a first distance apart from the first slot (see Fig. 11C); and a third slot (1143) having a third length along the direction and spaced a second distance apart from the second slot (see Fig. 11C); wherein the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence, any one of the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot is a closed slot, and the first length, the second length, and the third length are different (see Fig. 11C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna of Wong such that the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence, employing the teachings of Kim.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the capacity to visibly conceal the slot antenna structure within an encompassing device (Kim, ¶189 lines 22-25).
Regarding claim 11, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 9.
Wong does not teach wherein the first length is greater than or equal to 16 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, the second length is greater than or equal to 11 mm and less than or equal to 15 mm, and the third length is greater than or equal to 43 mm and less than or equal to 47 mm; however, Wong does teach a length of each of the first slot, second slot, and third slot is determined in order to achieve a desired operating frequency of the antenna unit (¶21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that the first length is greater than or equal to 16 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm, the second length is greater than or equal to 11 mm and less than or equal to 15 mm, and the third length is greater than or equal to 43 mm and less than or equal to 47 mm, employing the teachings of Wong, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of each slot with respect to a desired operating frequency of the antenna unit (Wong, ¶21).
Regarding claim 15, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1, further comprising a feeding point disposed on the antenna unit (16 comprises a feeding point), wherein a position of the feeding point corresponds to the third slot (16 is construed as feeding each of the slots 13-15, thus comprises a feeding point at a position which corresponds to the third slot 15).
Regarding claim 16, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 9.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein a sum of the first length, the second length, the third length, the first distance, and the second distance is less than or equal to 84 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since such modification would have involved 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). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For example, the first length, second length, and third length may be made arbitrarily small such that the antenna is operable on higher frequency bands, and the sum of the first length, the second length, the third length, the first distance, and the second distance is less than or equal to 84 mm or any arbitrary margin.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the slot antenna structure as a multiband antenna on desired frequencies (Wong, ¶2).
Regarding claim 17, Wong et al. teaches (Fig. 1) a slot antenna structure comprising: an antenna unit (16); and a metal unit (111) electrically connected to the antenna unit (slots of 111 are fed by, thus electrically activated by, 16) and comprising: a first slot (13) having a first length along a direction (see Fig. 1); a second slot (14) having a second length along the direction and spaced at a first distance from the first slot (see Fig. 1); and a third slot (15) having a third length along the direction and spaced at a second distance apart from the second slot (see Fig. 1), wherein the first length is greater than the second length, and the third length is greater than the first length (see Fig. 1; ¶21).
Wong does not teach an electronic device comprising: a housing, and the slot antenna structure disposed in the housing; wherein the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence.
Kim et al. teaches (Figs. 1-11C) an electronic device (1100) comprising: a housing (1110); and a slot antenna structure disposed in the housing (1140) comprising: a metal unit (1142) comprising: a first slot (see Fig. 11C, top 1144) having a first length along a direction (see Fig. 11C), a second slot (middle 1144) having a second length along the direction and spaced a first distance apart from the first slot (see Fig. 11C); and a third slot (1143) having a third length along the direction and spaced a second distance apart from the second slot (see Fig. 11C); wherein the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence, the first length is greater than the second length, and the third length is greater than the first length (see Fig. 11C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna of Wong such that an electronic device comprising a housing comprises the slot antenna, disposed in the housing, and such that the first slot, the second slot, and the third slot are arranged along the direction in sequence, employing the teachings of Kim.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the capacity to visibly conceal the slot antenna structure within the encompassing electronic device (Kim, ¶189 lines 22-25).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0256802) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0346164) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ishiwata et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0284256).
Regarding claim 2, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein the first distance and the second distance are each greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For example, Ishiwata et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (12) comprising: a first slot (13a); a second slot (13b) spaced a first distance (d) apart from the first slot; and a third slot (13c) spaced a second distance (d) apart from the second slot; wherein the first distance and the second distance are each greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm (see ¶112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that the first distance and the second distance are each greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm, employing the teachings of Ishiwata.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably increasing a Q value of a resonance peak at a resonance frequency of a resonance element (Ishiwata, ¶78).
Regarding claim 10, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 9.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein the first distance and the second distance are each greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For example, Ishiwata et al. teaches (Fig. 3) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (12) comprising: a first slot (13a); a second slot (13b) spaced a first distance (d) apart from the first slot; and a third slot (13c) spaced a second distance (d) apart from the second slot; wherein the first distance and the second distance are each greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm (see ¶112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that the first distance and the second distance are each greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm, employing the teachings of Ishiwata.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of desirably increasing a Q value of a resonance peak at a resonance frequency of a resonance element (Ishiwata, ¶78).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0256802) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0346164) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Ruaro et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0372205).
Regarding claim 4, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1.
Wong does not teach wherein a resonance frequency of the first slot is between 6.2 GHz and 7.1 GHz, a resonance frequency of the second slot is between 5.1 GHz and 6.1 GHz, and a resonance frequency of the third slot is between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz; however, the modification of the slot antenna structure to achieve these limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and teachings of slot antenna structure slots resonating with the recited frequencies were known in the field of invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Ruaro et al. teaches (Figs. 1-7) a slot antenna structure (40) comprising: a slot (74), wherein a resonance first frequency of the slot is between 6.2 GHz and 7.1 GHz, a second resonance frequency of the slot is between 5.1 GHz and 6.1 GHz, and a third resonance frequency of the slot is between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz (¶42; range of operable frequencies includes cellular midband and UWB frequencies, 2200-2700 MHz, and 5-8.3 GHz, which encompasses 6.2-7.1 GHz, 5.1-6.1 GHz, and 2.4-2.5 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that a resonance frequency of the first slot is between 6.2 GHz and 7.1 GHz, a resonance frequency of the second slot is between 5.1 GHz and 6.1 GHz, and a resonance frequency of the third slot is between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz, employing the teachings of Ruaro.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the slot antenna structure as a multiband antenna on desired frequencies (Ruaro, ¶42).
Regarding claim 12, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 9.
Wong does not teach wherein a resonance frequency of the first slot is between 6.2 GHz and 7.1 GHz, a resonance frequency of the second slot is between 5.1 GHz and 6.1 GHz, and a resonance frequency of the third slot is between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz; however, the modification of the slot antenna structure to achieve these limitations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, and teachings of slot antenna structure slots resonating with the recited frequencies were known in the field of invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Ruaro et al. teaches (Figs. 1-7) a slot antenna structure (40) comprising: a slot (74), wherein a resonance first frequency of the slot is between 6.2 GHz and 7.1 GHz, a second resonance frequency of the slot is between 5.1 GHz and 6.1 GHz, and a third resonance frequency of the slot is between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz (¶42; range of operable frequencies includes cellular midband and UWB frequencies, 2200-2700 MHz, and 5-8.3 GHz, which encompasses 6.2-7.1 GHz, 5.1-6.1 GHz, and 2.4-2.5 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that a resonance frequency of the first slot is between 6.2 GHz and 7.1 GHz, a resonance frequency of the second slot is between 5.1 GHz and 6.1 GHz, and a resonance frequency of the third slot is between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz, employing the teachings of Ruaro.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the slot antenna structure as a multiband antenna on desired frequencies (Ruaro, ¶42).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0256802) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0346164) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Boyle (US PG Pub. No. 2006/0290569).
Regarding claim 5, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1, wherein the second length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the second slot and less than or equal to one half of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the second slot (¶21 lines 4-6), and the third length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the third slot and less than or equal to one half of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the third slot (¶21 lines 6-8).
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein the first length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first slot and less than or equal to three quarters of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the first slot.
Boyle teaches (Fig. 1) a slot antenna structure comprising: a first slot (22) having a first length, wherein the first length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first slot and less than or equal to three quarters of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the first slot (Abstract, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that the first length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first slot and less than or equal to three quarters of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the first slot, employing the teachings of Boyle.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the first slot on a desired wavelength (Boyle, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 9, wherein the second length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the second slot and less than or equal to one half of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the second slot (¶21 lines 4-6), and the third length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the third slot and less than or equal to one half of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the third slot (¶21 lines 6-8).
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein the first length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first slot and less than or equal to three quarters of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the first slot.
Boyle teaches (Fig. 1) a slot antenna structure comprising: a first slot (22) having a first length, wherein the first length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first slot and less than or equal to three quarters of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the first slot (Abstract, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that the first length is greater than or equal to one quarter of a wavelength of a resonance frequency of the first slot and less than or equal to three quarters of the wavelength of the resonance frequency of the first slot, employing the teachings of Boyle.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling operation of the first slot on a desired wavelength (Boyle, Abstract).
Claims 6, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0256802) in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0346164) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 17 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0168025).
Regarding claim 6, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 1.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the first slot, a width of the second slot, and a width of the third slot are each less than 2 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since such modification would have involved 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). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For example, Chang et al. teaches (Fig. 3A) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (32, 34) comprising: a slot (300), wherein a width of the slot is 1 mm (¶30 lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that a width of the first slot, a width of the second slot, and a width of the third slot are each less than 2 mm, employing the teachings of Chang.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving isolation of the slot antenna elements (Chang, ¶30 lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 14, Wong teaches the slot antenna structure according to claim 9.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the first slot, a width of the second slot, and a width of the third slot are each less than 2 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since such modification would have involved 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). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For example, Chang et al. teaches (Fig. 3A) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (32, 34) comprising: a slot (300), wherein a width of the slot is 1 mm (¶30 lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the slot antenna structure of Wong such that a width of the first slot, a width of the second slot, and a width of the third slot are each less than 2 mm, employing the teachings of Chang.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving isolation of the slot antenna elements (Chang, ¶30 lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 18, Wong teaches the electronic device according to claim 17.
Wong does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the first slot, a width of the second slot, and a width of the third slot are each 1 mm; however, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since such modification would have involved 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). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
For example, Chang et al. teaches (Fig. 3A) a slot antenna structure comprising: a metal unit (32, 34) comprising: a slot (300), wherein a width of the slot is 1 mm (¶30 lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic device of Wong such that a width of the first slot, a width of the second slot, and a width of the third slot are each 1 mm, employing the teachings of Chang.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of improving isolation of the slot antenna elements (Chang, ¶30 lines 9-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM 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 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
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights