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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 10 & 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 10 & 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 2-9 be found allowable, claims 11-18, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 2-9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 11-18, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 20 be found allowable, claims 3 & 12, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 3 & 12, respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0359407.
Regarding Claim 1, Xiao et al. teaches a system (Figs. 1, 2, 6a) comprising:
a loop antenna (113 Fig. 2 Par. 0100); and
a dipole antenna (112 Fig. 2 Par. 0100) that includes at least two dipole arms (1121, 1122 Fig. 2 Par. 0100),
wherein each of the at least two dipole arms is electrically connected to the loop antenna (connected at feed point 115 Par. 0102, and through 16 Fig. 2), and
wherein the loop antenna comprises a balun (116 Fig. 2 Par. 0104) for the dipole antenna.
PNG
media_image1.png
1498
1388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the electrical connection between the loop antenna and the at least two arms of the dipole antenna create a combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna (“the first antenna 11 is a combination of the dipole antenna and the loop antenna” Par. 0098, wideband 2GHz-7GHz Par. 0102).
Regarding Claim 3, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna is tunable using at least one tuner (111 Fig. 6a Par. 0130) that is electrically connected thereto.
Regarding Claim 4, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna is tunable between 5-7 GHz (2GHz-7GHz Par. 0102, 0141-0145).
Regarding Claim 5, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are electrically connected to the loop antenna along a two-dimensional plane (Figs. 2, 6a).
Regarding Claim 6, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are shaped such that at least a portion of the dipole arms extends away from the loop antenna over a specified length and such that at least a portion of the dipole arms bends toward the loop antenna for a different specified length (Figs. 2, 6a).
Regarding Claim 7, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are electrically connected to the loop antenna along a three-dimensional plane (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Xiao et al. teaches a mobile electronic device (Figs. 1, 2, 6a Par. 0212) comprising:
a loop antenna (113 Fig. 2 Par. 0100); and
a dipole antenna (112 Fig. 2 Par. 0100) that includes at least two dipole arms (1121, 1122 Fig. 2 Par. 0100),
wherein each of the at least two dipole arms is electrically connected to the loop antenna (connected at feed point 115 Par. 0102, and through 16 Fig. 2), and
wherein the loop antenna comprises a balun (116 Fig. 2 Par. 0104) for the dipole antenna.
Regarding Claim 11, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the electrical connection between the loop antenna and the at least two arms of the dipole antenna create a combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna (“the first antenna 11 is a combination of the dipole antenna and the loop antenna” Par. 0098, wideband 2GHz-7GHz Par. 0102).
Regarding Claim 12, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna is tunable using at least one tuner (111 Fig. 6a Par. 0130) that is electrically connected thereto.
Regarding Claim 13, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna is tunable between 5-7 GHz (2GHz-7GHz Par. 0102, 0141-0145).
Regarding Claim 14, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are electrically connected to the loop antenna along a two-dimensional plane (Figs. 2, 6a).
Regarding Claim 15, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are shaped such that at least a portion of the dipole arms extends away from the loop antenna over a specified length and such that at least a portion of the dipole arms bends toward the loop antenna for a different specified length (Figs. 2, 6a).
Regarding Claim 16, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are electrically connected to the loop antenna along a three-dimensional plane (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Xiao et al. teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1, 2, 6a) comprising:
a loop antenna (113 Fig. 2 Par. 0100); and
a dipole antenna (112 Fig. 2 Par. 0100) that includes at least two dipole arms (1121, 1122 Fig. 2 Par. 0100),
wherein each of the at least two dipole arms is electrically connected to the loop antenna (connected at feed point 115 Par. 0102, and through 16 Fig. 2), and
wherein the loop antenna comprises a balun for the dipole antenna (116 Fig. 2 Par. 0104).
Regarding Claim 20, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the electrical connection between the loop antenna and the at least two arms of the dipole antenna create a combined loop-dipole, dual-wideband antenna (“the first antenna 11 is a combination of the dipole antenna and the loop antenna” Par. 0098, wideband 2GHz-7GHz Par. 0102) that is tunable using at least one tuner that is electrically connected thereto (111 Fig. 6a Par. 0130).
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.
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 8, 9, 17 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao et al. US Patent Application Publication 2021/0359407 and Chiang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0214741.
Regarding Claim 8, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are shaped such that at least a portion of the dipole arms extends away from the loop antenna over a specified length (Fig. 2), and such that at least a portion of the dipole arms bends back toward the loop antenna for a different specified length (Fig. 2).
Xiao et al. does not explicitly teach at least a portion of the dipole arms extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length.
However, Chiang et al. teaches at least a portion of the dipole arms (2101, 2102 Figs. 9-11 Par. 0039) extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length (220 Figs. 9-11 Par. 0039).
PNG
media_image2.png
1416
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this particular case, arranging at least a portion of the dipole arms to extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length is common and well known in the art as evident by Chiang et al. in order to improve antenna gain and return loss (Par. 0043).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange at least a portion of the dipole arms of Xiao et al. to extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length based on the teachings of Chiang et al. as a result effect in order to improve antenna gain and return loss.
Regarding Claim 9, Xiao et al. as modified teaches wherein the portion of the dipole arms that is bent back toward the loop antenna for a different specified length overlaps at least a portion of the loop antenna (arms 1121, 1122 overlap part of loop antenna 113 as seen in at least Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the at least two dipole arms of the dipole antenna are shaped such that at least a portion of the dipole arms extends away from the loop antenna over a specified length (Fig. 2), and such that at least a portion of the dipole arms bends back toward the loop antenna for a different specified length (Fig. 2).
Xiao et al. does not explicitly teach at least a portion of the dipole arms extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length.
However, Chiang et al. teaches at least a portion of the dipole arms (2101, 2102 Figs. 9-11 Par. 0039) extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length (220 Figs. 9-11 Par. 0039).
In this particular case, arranging at least a portion of the dipole arms to extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length is common and well known in the art as evident by Chiang et al. in order to improve antenna gain and return loss (Par. 0043).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange at least a portion of the dipole arms of Xiao et al. to extends orthogonally along a z-axis away from the loop antenna over a different specified length based on the teachings of Chiang et al. as a result effect in order to improve antenna gain and return loss.
Regarding Claim 18, Xiao et al. teaches wherein the portion of the dipole arms that is bent back toward the loop antenna for a different specified length overlaps at least a portion of the loop antenna (arms 1121, 1122 overlap part of loop antenna 113 as seen in at least Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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 on (571) 270-7893. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845