DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the applicant's amendment submitted on 08/11/2025. In virtue of this amendment:
Claims 27-34 were previously canceled;
Claims 1-26 are currently amended; and thus,
Claims 1-26 are pending;
Examiner Note: Claims 27-34 is not present on the most recent set of claims, applicant is reminded that the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim, and therefore claims 27-34 needs to be identified as “Cancelled” in order for the amendment to be in compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121 or 1.4.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in ¶73 the applicant labeled “top-side radiating element as [620] for Fig.6; however, Fig.6 labels the corresponding element as [320] .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 24 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to US2002/0140612A1 hereinafter “Kadambi” in view of US2015/0357717A1 hereinafter “Petted”. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection to claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is dependent on claim 27, which is a canceled claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of this office action, the examiner is interpreting the claim as being dependent on claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the metal layer” which renders the claim indefinite, as there is an lack of antecedent basis for said term.
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 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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2002/0140612A1 hereinafter “Kadambi” in view of US2015/0357717A1 hereinafter “Petted”.
Regarding claim 24, Kadambi disclose an antenna system (¶50L1-2: the diversity antenna) comprising
an inverted planar inverted "F" antenna (PIFA) (as shown Fig.3A) (Note: although the Figure shows the antenna elements as left/right; however by rotating the antenna +90 degrees, radiating element [12] is now “bottom” and radiating element [11] is now “top” and thus making radiating element [12] an inverted PIFA as the radiating element is below the ground plane [13]) including a bottom-side radiating element (Fig.3A: the “bottom-side” radiating element [12]) ; and
a PIFA including a top-side radiating element (as shown Fig.3A) (Note: although the Figure shows the antenna elements as left/right; however by rotating the antenna +90 degrees, radiating element [11] is now “top” and radiating element [12] is now “bottom” and thus making radiating element [11] a PIFA as the radiating element is above the ground plane [13]) wherein the antenna system is configured such that
the bottom-side radiating element of the inverted flexible PIFA and the top-side radiating element of the flexible PIFA are respectively operable with oppositely directed radiation outwardly away from a mounting surface (as shown Fig.3A) (Note: PIFA is also to be known to radiate an omnidirectional pattern), thereby providing the antenna system with dissimilar (uncorrelated) radiated patterns for coverage redundancy for diversity (Note: since the radiation direction are opposite, the radiation pattern are not the same) and MIMO operations (Note: there are multiple input and multiple output, rendering the antenna MIMO operation)
Kadambi does not disclose the inverted PIFA and PIFA are flexible.
Petted discloses a flexible planar inverted "F" antenna (PIFA) (¶27L1: flexible PIFA)
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application modify the antenna elements disclosed by Kadambi with the flexible construction disclosed by Petted.
One of ordinary skill in the art would’ve been motivated because this allows the antenna to be used with various kinds of articles that do not include flat surface for mounting (¶3L1-8)
Regarding claim 1, Kadambi in view of Petted hereinafter “Kadambi/Petted” discloses in Kadamb the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA is configured for an inverted mount to the mounting surface (as shown Fig.3A) (Note: radiating element [12] is now “bottom” mounted on ground plane [13])
a radiation pattern of the bottom-side radiating element is directed outwardly away from the mounting surface when the inverted flexible PIFA is mounted to the mounting surface. (Note: PIFA is also to be known to radiate an omnidirectional pattern)
Regarding claim 2, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a bottom-side adhesive for adhesively mounting the inverted flexible PIFA to the mounting surface (¶29L8-11: an adhesive is applied to the cover layer over the ground plate portion) whereby the bottom-side radiating element is configured to radiate outwardly through the bottom-side adhesive and the mounting surface when the inverted flexible PIFA is adhesively mounted to the mounting surface via the bottom-side adhesive. (as shown in Fig.17 for example) (Note: PIFA is also to be known to radiate an omnidirectional pattern)
Regarding claim 3, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a bottom side including inner and outer surfaces (as shown in Fig.5 for example), and an adhesive along the outer surface of the bottom side for adhesively mounting the bottom side of inverted flexible PIFA to the mounting surface (¶29L8-11: an adhesive is applied to the cover layer over the ground plate portion); and
the bottom-side radiating element is along the inner surface of the bottom side such that the bottom-side radiating element is configured to radiate outwardly through bottom side and the adhesive along the outer surface of the bottom side. (as shown in Fig.17 for example) (Note: PIFA is also to be known to radiate an omnidirectional pattern)
Regarding claim 4, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 3, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA is internally adhesively mountable, via the adhesive, along an inner surface of a forward- facing part of an enclosure (¶29L8-11: an adhesive is applied to the cover layer over the ground plate portion; when the flexible PIFA is to be applied to a surface), whereby
the bottom-side radiating element is operable for radiating forwardly through the forward-facing part of the enclosure when the inverted flexible PIFA is adhesively mounted to the inner surface of the forward-facing part of the enclosure. (as shown in Fig.17 for example) (Note: PIFA is also to be known to radiate an omnidirectional pattern)
Regarding claim 5, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 3, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA is internally adhesively mountable, via the adhesive, along an inner surface of a top- facing part of an enclosure (¶29L8-11: an adhesive is applied to the cover layer over the ground plate portion; when the flexible PIFA is to be applied to a surface),whereby
the bottom-side radiating element is operable for radiating upwardly through the top-facing part of the enclosure when the inverted flexible PIFA is adhesively mounted to the inner surface of the top-facing part of the enclosure. (as shown in Fig.17 for example) (Note: PIFA is also to be known to radiate an omnidirectional pattern)
Regarding claim 6, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) having a metal layer on a first side that is covered by a cover layer (¶29L1-4: the flexible polyimide PCB having a metal layer; the cover layer is applied over the metal layer), the flexible PCB comprising
a second side opposite the first side; and the second side is foldable or bendable to form the bottom-side radiating element and a top-side ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to each other such that the bottom-side radiating element and the top-side ground plane are defined by the flexible PCB. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 7, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 6, wherein
the second side is foldable or bendable relative to a dielectric to form the bottom-side radiating element and the top- side ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to each other. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 8, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 27 (see 112 rejection above for examiner’s interpretation), wherein
the dielectric comprises foam (¶28L8-10: a dielectric material (e.g., a foam)) or air. (¶2L13-16: an air gap resides between the main element and the ground plate.)
Regarding claim 9, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 6, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a flexible dielectric element around which the second side is foldable or bendable to form the bottom-side radiating element and the top-side ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to each other. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 10, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 6, wherein
the flexible PCB is configured such that the inverted flexible PIFA is freestanding and/or self-supporting (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7) such that air is the only dielectric between the bottom-side radiating element and the top- side ground plane. (¶2L13-16: an air gap resides between the main element and the ground plate.)
Regarding claim 11, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 6, wherein the inverted flexible PIFA comprises
an antenna performance when electrically connected to a wireless device that is maintained when the flexible PCB is bent into a concave shape or into a convex shape. (Clam 1: antenna performance is maintained when said flexible PIFA is bent into a concave shape or into a convex shape)
Regarding claim 12, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a cable having a first end electrically connected to the metal layer and having a second end adapted to electrically connect to a wireless device. (¶28L11-12: the flexible PIFA antenna feed to a wireless device is provided by a cable)
Regarding claim 13, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a flex circuit that includes or defines the bottom-side radiating element and a top-side ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to the bottom-side radiating element. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 14, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein
the flex circuit is foldable or bendable into a generally U-shaped configuration in which the bottom-side radiating element and the top-side ground plane are spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to each other. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 15, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises an antenna performance when electrically connected to a wireless device that is maintained when the flex circuit is bent into a concave shape or into a convex shape. (Clam 1: antenna performance is maintained when said flexible PIFA is bent into a concave shape or into a convex shape)
Regarding claim 16, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein
the flex circuit comprises polyimide film and electrical conductor(s) in the polyimide film defining the bottom-side radiating element and the top-side ground plane. (¶28L1-2: a flexible printed circuit board (e.g., a polyimide PCB)
Regarding claim 17, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein
the flex circuit is foldable or bendable relative to a dielectric to form the bottom-side radiating element and the top- side ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to each other. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 18, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 17, wherein
the dielectric comprises foam (¶28L8-10: a dielectric material (e.g., a foam)) or air (¶2L13-16: an air gap resides between the main element and the ground plate.)
Regarding claim 19, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a flexible dielectric element around which the flex circuit is foldable or bendable to form the bottom-side radiating element and the top-side ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel to each other. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 20, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein
the flex circuit is configured such that the inverted flexible PIFA is freestanding and/or self-supporting such that air is the only dielectric between the bottom-side radiating element and the top- side ground plane. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 21, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 13, wherein the flex circuit is thermoformed such that the inverted flexible PIFA is freestanding and/or self-supporting without requiring a flexible dielectric support between the bottom-side radiating element and the top-side ground plane. (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7)
Regarding claim 22, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 1, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA comprises a coaxial launch (¶28L12-14: the coaxial cable is soldered to an antenna feedpoint comprising feed tab) and an alternative solder tab launch (¶29L5-6: antenna feed/ground tabs) located along an edge of the inverted flexible PIFA that connects the bottom-side radiating element and a top-side ground plane of the inverted flexible PIFA for reducing distortion of an antenna feedpoint when the inverted flexible PIFA is bent into a concave shape or into a convex shape. (¶28L11-24: the feed point is located along the short edge SE of the flexible PIFA; which experiences the least amount of distortion when the flexible PIFA is bent or flexed; thus such positioning minimizes any distortion int eh antenna)
Regarding claim 23, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24, wherein
the inverted flexible PIFA is configured to be operable with an antenna performance when electrically connected to a wireless device that is maintained when the inverted flexible PIFA is in use. (Clam 1: antenna performance is maintained when said flexible PIFA is bent into a concave shape or into a convex shape)
Regarding claim 25, Kadambi/Petted discloses in Petted the antenna system of claim 24,wherein
the flexible PIFA comprises a flex circuit (¶30L1-7: the PCB is folded around the dielectric element into the structure shown in Fig.7) defining the top-side radiating element and a ground plane spaced apart from and/or generally parallel with the top-side radiating element, wherein
the flex circuit is configured and/or thermoformed such that the flexible PIFA is freestanding and/or self-supporting without requiring a flexible dielectric support between the top-side radiating element and the ground plane (as shown in Fig.7), thereby allowing the use of air as the only dielectric between the top-side radiating element and the ground plane. (¶2L13-16: an air gap resides between the main element and the ground plate.)
Regarding claims 26, the claims recites similar limitations as those seen in claims 1-25 and thus rejected with same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND R CHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-0576. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander H Taningco can be reached at (571)272-8048. 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.
/Raymond R Chai/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844