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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachibana US20210320418 in view of Kim et al. US20230178901.
With regards to independent claim 1, Tachibana discloses an antenna device [Fig. 1] comprising: a feeder circuit 10 to process signals in a first frequency range, a second frequency range, and a third frequency range; a first radiator 11 capable of resonating in the first frequency range f1, f2 [paragraph 53 and Fig. 1]; a second radiator 12 to resonate in the third frequency range f3 [paragraph 53]; a first coil L1 connected between the feeder circuit and the first radiator; and a second coil L2 connected to the second radiator and magnetically coupled to the first coil; wherein a first center frequency refers to a center frequency of the first frequency range [paragraph 53]; a second center frequency refers to a center frequency of the second frequency range [paragraph 53]; a third center frequency refers to a center frequency of the third frequency range [paragraph 53]; an absolute value of a difference between the first center frequency f1 and the third center frequency f2 is less than an absolute value of a difference between the second center frequency f3 and the third center frequency; and the second center frequency f3 is less than three times the first center frequency f1.
Tachibana does not explicitly disclose an absolute value of a difference between the first center frequency and the third center frequency is less than an absolute value of a difference between the second center frequency and the third center frequency; and the second center frequency is less than three times the first center frequency. However, Tachibana does disclose the three center frequencies relationship as f3>f2>f1 [paragraph 53]. Note: Substituting values f2:third center frequency = 12 hz, f3:second center frequency = 25 hz, f1:first center frequency = 10 hz would meet the relationship as taught by Tachibana and limitations as recited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design/tune/optimizes the center frequencies as such to minimize any interference as implied by Tachibana. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value (center frequencies) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Tachibana does not disclose a first radiator with a patch structure capable of resonating in the first frequency range in a first direction and resonating in the second frequency range in a second direction.
Kim et al. discloses a first radiator with a patch structure (KIM Fig 8, 800) capable of resonating in the first frequency range (Kim Para 96, second frequency band) in a first direction (KIM Para 96, horizontal linear polarization, Fig 8a) and resonating in the second frequency range (Kim Para 96, first frequency band) in a second direction (KIM Para 96, Vertical linear polarization, Fig 8b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al, and add a patch antenna capable of resonating in a first frequency range in a first direction and resonating in a second frequency range in a second direction. Doing so would allow for the antenna to receive multiple signals and polarization directions, increasing bandwidth (Kim et al. Para 9).
Claims 1, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nasu (WO 2019208297) in view of Kim et al. (US 20230178901) and Tachibana US20210320418.
Regarding Claim 1, Nasu teaches: An antenna device comprising: a feeder circuit (NASU Fig 3, 30) to process signals in a first frequency range (NASU Para 47, F11), a second frequency range (NASU Para 47, F13), and a third frequency range (NASU Para 47, F21); a first radiator (NASU Fig 3, 11) capable of resonating in the first frequency range (NASU Para 47, F11) and resonating in the second frequency range (NASU Para 47, F13); a second radiator (NASU Fig 3, 12) to resonate in the third frequency range (NASU Para 47, F21); a first coil (NASU Fig 3, L1) connected between the feeder circuit (NASU Fig 3, 30) and the first radiator (NASU Fig 3, 11); and a second coil (NASU Fig 3, L2) connected to the second radiator (NASU Fig 3, 12) and magnetically coupled (NASU Fig 3, M) to the first coil (NASU Fig 3, L1); wherein a first center frequency (NASU Para 47, F11), refers to a center frequency of the first frequency range (NASU Para 47, F11),; a second center frequency (NASU Para 47, F13), refers to a center frequency of the second frequency range (NASU Para 47, F13),; a third center frequency (NASU Para 47, F21), refers to a center frequency of the third frequency range(NASU Para 47, F21),; and an absolute value of a difference (annotated NASU Fig 8) between the first center frequency (NASU Para 47, F11), and the third center frequency (NASU Para 47, F21) is less than an absolute value of a difference (annotated NASU Fig 8) between the second center frequency (NASU Para 47, F13) and the third center frequency (NASU Para 47, F21).
PNG
media_image1.png
434
563
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nasu does not teach:
a first radiator with a patch structure capable of resonating in the first frequency range in a first direction and resonating in the second frequency range in a second direction; and the second center frequency is less than three times the first center frequency.
Kim et al. does teach:
a first radiator with a patch structure (KIM Fig 8, 800) capable of resonating in the first frequency range (Kim Para 96, second frequency band) in a first direction (KIM Para 96, horizontal linear polarization, Fig 8a) and resonating in the second frequency range (Kim Para 96, first frequency band) in a second direction (KIM Para 96, Vertical linear polarization, Fig 8b);
PNG
media_image2.png
539
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al, and add a patch antenna capable of resonating in a first frequency range in a first direction and resonating in a second frequency range in a second direction. Doing so would allow for the antenna to receive multiple signals and polarization directions, increasing bandwidth (Kim et al. Para 9).
Tachibana does disclose the three center frequencies relationship as f3>f2>f1 [paragraph 53]. Note: Substituting values f2:third center frequency = 12 hz, f3:second center frequency = 25 hz, f1:first center frequency = 10 hz would meet the relationship as taught by Tachibana and limitations as recited.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design/tune/optimizes the center frequencies as such to minimize any interference as implied by Tachibana. Additionally, it has been held that discovering an optimum value (center frequencies) of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Nasu, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nasu, as modified above, teaches:
a first connection point (annotated NASU Fig 3, T1) at which the first radiator (Nasu Fig 3,11) is connected to the first coil (Nasu Fig 3, L1)
PNG
media_image3.png
437
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nasu does not teach:
The connection point is located at a position spaced in one direction from a center axis of the first radiator.
Kim et al. does teach:
The connection point (annotated Kim, Fig 8a) is located at a position spaced in one direction (annotated Fig 8A, -X direction) from a center axis (annotated Kim, Fig 8A) of the first radiator (Kim Fig 8A, 800).
PNG
media_image4.png
533
420
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al, to position the connection point at a position spaced in one direction from a center axis of the first radiator. Doing so would allow for the antenna to receive multiple signals and polarization directions while keeping the signal path short (Kim et al. Para 143).
Regarding Claim 6, Nasu, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 1 above. Nasu, as modified above, teaches:
wherein a second connection point (annotated Nasu Fig 2) at which the second radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 12) is connected to the second coil (Nasu Fig 3, L2) is at a position in the second radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 12) closer to the first radiator (Nasu Fig 10, 10).
PNG
media_image5.png
357
768
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Nasu, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 6 above. Nasu, as modified above, teaches:
wherein the second radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 12) includes an open end (annotated Nasu Fig 2) located farthest from the second connection point (annotated Nasu Fig 2 and Fig 3, T3) and the open end is farther from the first radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 11) than the second connection point (annotated Nasu Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Nasu, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 6 above. Nasu, as modified above, teaches:
wherein the second radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 12) includes an open end (annotated Nasu Fig 2) located farthest from the second connection point (annotated Nasu Fig 2. And Fig 3, T3) and the open end is adjacent to or in a vicinity of (in a suitable radius of) the first radiator (annotated Nasu Fig 2, 10).
PNG
media_image6.png
329
589
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Nasu, as modified above, teaches the device of claim 8 above. Nasu, as modified above, teaches:
wherein the open end (annotated Nasu Fig 2) of the second radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 12) is adjacent to or in a vicinity of (in a suitable radius of) a portion of the first radiator (Nasu Fig 2,11) where a generated electric field has a same polarity as an electric field generated at the open end (annotated Nasu Fig 2) of the second radiator (Nasu Fig 2, 12).
PNG
media_image7.png
356
719
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Nasu (WO 2019208297) in view of Kim et al. (US 20230178901) and Tachibana US20210320418 and further in view of ELLA (WO 2008075133).
Regarding Claim 2, Nasu, as modified above, teaches:
wherein the first radiator (NASU Fig 3, 11) resonates in the first frequency range (NASU Para 47, F11) and resonates in the second frequency range (NASU Para 47, F13).
Nasu does not teach:
wherein the first radiator includes at least one first side to resonate in the first frequency range and at least one second side to resonate in the second frequency range, and the second radiator is closer to one of the at least one second side than to the at least one first side.
Kim et al teaches:
wherein the first radiator (KIM Fig 8, 800) includes at least one first side (KIM Fig 8a, 813 and 814) to resonate (KIM, Fig 8a, 830) in the first frequency range (KIM para 118, second frequency band) and at least one second side (KIM Fig 8a, 811 and 812) to resonate (KIM, Fig 8a, 850) in the second frequency range (KIM para 119, first frequency band),
PNG
media_image2.png
539
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al, and add a first radiator including at least one first side to resonate in the first frequency range and at least one second side to resonate in a second frequency range. Doing so would allow for the antenna to receive multiple signals and polarization directions, increasing bandwidth (Kim et al. Para 9).
Kim et al. does not teach:
the second radiator is closer to one of the at least one second side than to the at least one first side.
Ella does teach:
wherein the first radiator (ELLA Fig 3, 36) includes at least one first side (annotated ELLA Fig 3) and at least one second side (annotated ELLA Fig 3) and the second radiator (Ella Fig 3, 34) is closer to one of the at least one second side (annotated ELLA Fig 3) than to the at least one first side (annotated ELLA Fig 3).
PNG
media_image8.png
550
631
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Ella to position the second radiator closer to the at least one second side than the at least one first side. Doing so would allow for the antenna performance and bandwidth to be adjusted by tuning the coupling between the second radiator and the second side (Ella Page 11, lines 14-32).
Regarding Claim 4, Nasu, as modified above, does not teach:
wherein the at least one second side of the first radiator is longer than the at least one first side of the first radiator; and a first slit is on the at least one first side, a second slit is on the at least one second side, and the first slit is longer than the second slit.
Kim et al. does teach:
wherein the at least one second side (KIM Fig 8a, 811 and 812) of the first radiator (KIM Fig 8, 800) is longer than the at least one first side (KIM Fig 8a, 813 and 814) of the first radiator (KIM Fig 8, 800); and a first slit (KIM Fig 8a, 813a and 814a) is on the at least one first side (KIM Fig 8a, 813 and 814), a second slit (KIM Fig 8a, 811a and 812a) is on the at least one second side (KIM Fig 8a, 811 and 812), and the first slit (KIM Fig 8a, 813a and 814a) is longer than the second slit (KIM Fig 8a, 811a and 812a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the invention was effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al by ensuring the at least one second side of the first radiator is longer than the at least one first side of the first radiator; and a first slit is on the at least one first side, a second slit is on the at least one second side, and the first slit is longer than the second slit. Doing so would allow for the antenna to be further tuned to receive desired frequencies of different polarization directions (Kim et al. Para 120).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest “wherein the first radiator includes a first end portion and a second end portion located on an opposite side from the first end portion, an electric field generated in the first end portion and an electric field generated in the second end portion have opposite polarities when the first radiator resonates in the first frequency range; the second radiator is closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion; and an electric field generated in the second radiator when the second radiator resonates in the third frequency range has a same polarity as an electric field generated in the first end portion of the first radiator”, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to independent claim 10, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest “an electric field generated in the first end portion and an electric field generated in the second end portion have opposite polarities when the first radiator resonates in the first frequency range; the second radiator is closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion; and an electric field generated in the second radiator when the second radiator resonates in the third frequency range has a same polarity as an electric field generated in the first end portion of the first radiator”, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Dependent claims 11 and 13-18 are allowable by virtue of its dependency.
With regards to independent claim 19, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest an antenna device comprising “an electric field generated in the first end portion and an electric field generated in the second end portion have opposite polarities when the first radiator resonates in the first frequency range; the second radiator is closer to the first end portion than to the second end portion; and an electric field generated in the second radiator when the second radiator resonates in the third frequency range has a same polarity as an electric field generated in the first end portion of the first radiator”, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ishizuka WO2020012885 discloses a self-resonant circuit
Nasu et al. US20210320397 discloses a coupling element including 1st and 2nd coils
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Taningco whose telephone number is (571)272-8048. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-4pm, 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, ANDREA WELLINGTON can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
ALEXANDER H. TANINGCO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/ALEXANDER H TANINGCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights