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 .
Remarks
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 01/07/26. Examiner acknowledged that claims 12 and 17 are amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/29/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 12 and 17, applicant argues in (p.6 of the Remarks) that Shiotsu does not disclose a trap-based dual-band antenna.
Examiner disagrees because Shiotsu teaches a trap (Fig. 6: 652) tuning the frequencies to allow the antenna to have the frequency ranges f(1)-f(4), f(5)-f(8), f(9)-f(13) also in Fig. 5: f(1)-f(4), f(5)-f(8), f(9)-f(13). Thus, Shiotsu teaches a trap or tuner based dual-band antenna. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 12 in view of Shiotsu is maintained.
Additionally, the “trap” in (Fig. 2: 28) of the instant application essentially contains inductors and capacitor which is the same components of (Fig. 6: 652) in the prior art. Since the components are the same, it would generate the first and second frequencies as claimed. However, applicant may claim generating both frequencies simultaneously if there is support in the specification in order to overcome the prior art as mentioned in the remark on p.6.
Claim 13 is rejected as it depends on claim 12.
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.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiotsu (US 2004/0041734).
Regarding Claim 12, Shiotsu teaches a dual band inverted-F antenna ([0011] “an antenna apparatus includes an inverted-F antenna”) comprising: a planar inverted-F antenna (Fig. 6: 502, 506, 508, 510); and a trap (Fig. 6: 652) configured to provide the antenna with both a first frequency band (Fig. 10: 833 Mhz) and a second frequency band (Fig. 10: 938 Mhz); wherein the first frequency band is separated from the second frequency band by less than 100 MHz (Fig. 10: the bands overlap making it less than 100 Mhz separation).
Regarding Claim 13, Shiotsu teaches the dual band inverted-F antenna of claim 12, wherein the first frequency band includes 865-870 MHz and the second frequency band includes 902-928 MHz (Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 17, Shiotsu teaches a dual band inverted-F antenna ([0011] “an antenna apparatus includes an inverted-F antenna”) comprising: a planar inverted-F antenna (Fig. 6: 502, 506, 508, 510); and a trap (Fig. 6: 652) configured to provide the antenna with both a first frequency band (Fig. 10: 833 Mhz) and a second frequency band (Fig. 10: 938 Mhz); and the first frequency band includes 865-870 MHz and the second frequency band includes 905-925 MHz (Fig. 10: the bands ranges of 833 and 938 contains these different ranges).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
The primary reasons for allowance of the claims 1-11 are due to the inclusion of the following limitations after a comprehensive search of the prior art:
"…a third antenna element formed by the first conductive layer, the third antenna element is spaced from the second leg of the first antenna element by a gap and positioned along the length of the second leg proximal of the distal end of the second leg but distal of the first connection point…" and in combination with the remaining claimed limitations as claimed in the claim(s), i.e., claim 1, (claims 2-11 are allowed as being dependent on claim 1).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 HENRY T LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7008. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 8:00-6:00.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/Henry Luong/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844