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 on 02/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the specification objections and claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claim 1, Applicant argued that “However, as shown in FIG. 11 of Barrera '051, end 154 of sheet metal member 152 does not extend all the way over antenna arm 60, leaving an open space between top surface 90 of substrate 74 and upper metal wall 12B-1 that is free of sheet metal. As such, antenna arm 60 is not vertically interposed between the bottom portion of sheet metal member 152 (i.e., the portion of sheet metal member 152 ending at end 156) and any other portion of sheet metal member 152 or any other "second piece of sheet metal."
Barrera '051 therefore fails to show or suggest "wherein the antenna arm is vertically interposed between the first piece of sheet metal and the second piece of sheet metal," as recited by claim 1 (emphasis added). Barrera '824 and Sato were used to show other features and cannot cure the deficiencies of Barrera '051.
For at least these reasons, claim 1 is patentable over Barrera '051, Barrera '824, and Sato whether taken alone or in any combination. Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1 and are patentable at least because claim 1 is patentable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because reference Barrera '051 can still read on the added limitation given their broadest reasonable interpretation that the antenna arm 60 is vertically interposed between the first piece of sheet metal (end 156 of sheet metal 152, fig. 11 below) and the second piece of sheet metal (end 154 of sheet metal 152). “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time” (MPEP2111.01).
Although fig. 11 of, end 154 of sheet metal member 152 does not extend all the way over antenna arm 60, the claim does not require the first and second sheet metals have to extend all the way over the antenna arm as shown in fig. 7 of the pending application, the drawings and the spec cannot be imported to the claim, according to MPEP 2111.01 "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the rejections of claim 13, Applicant argued that “Barrera '051 directly teaches away from placing antenna resonating element 60 on the other (outer) side of substrate 74. More particularly, Barrera '051 teaches that antenna resonating element 60 is formed from conductive traces that are specifically on inner surface 146 of substrate 74 to "protect the antenna resonating element arm from damage or contaminants." Put differently, even if Barrera '051 were to be modified based on the teaching of Sato to instead place antenna resonating element 60 on the opposite side of substrate 74, antenna resonating element 60 would be exposed to damage and contaminants, rendering Barrera '051 inoperable for its intended purpose of performing satisfactory wireless communications using antenna resonating element 60.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Barrera '051 does not require the antenna resonating element 60 has to be formed on the inner surface of the substrate. Figs. 5, 6, para [0048] discloses the antenna resonating element 60 can be formed on the front surface 82 of the substrate so that the radio-frequency antenna signals from antenna may pass through aperture (para [0064]). Moreover, Barrera '051 were to be modified based on the teaching of Sato with a dielectric layer (19, fig. 33) that covers the aperture (para [0086]), the antenna resonating element formed on the front of the substrate would be protected from damage and contaminants.
Regarding the rejections of claim 19, Applicant argued that “In the Office Action, it was suggested that antenna arm 60 in FIG. 11 of Barrera '051 is the same as the "third piece of sheet metal" in claim 19. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Paragraphs 48 and 89 of Barrera '051 describes that antenna arm 60 is formed from "conductive traces" on a surface of substrate 74. Conductive traces on a surface of substrate 74 are not the same as a "piece of sheet metal." Indeed, Barrera '051 simply makes no mention of forming antenna arm 60 of FIG. 11 from piece of sheet metal.
Barrera '051 therefore fails to show or suggest "a third piece of sheet metal within the cavity and mounted to the first piece of sheet metal," and "a radio-frequency transmission line coupled to the third piece of sheet metal within the cavity, the third piece of sheet metal being configured to radiate through the aperture and the dielectric layer," as recited by claim 19.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim does not specify the thickness, the dimension or any specific requirements of the sheet metal. Any prior art with an antenna arm made of a sheet of metal would read on the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that conductive traces are thin sheet metal, therefore Barrera '051 still reads on this limitation.
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 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera et al, US-20190356051-A1 (hereinafter Barrera’051) in view of Barrera et al, US-20200303824-A1 (hereinafter Barrera’824) applied as a teaching reference, and further in view of Sato, US-20040051670-A1.
Regarding claim 1, Barrera’051 discloses the following:
a laptop computer comprising:
a lower housing (12B, fig. 1) that includes an upper metal wall (12B-1, fig. 7, para [0086]) and a lower metal wall (12B-2);
an upper housing (12A) coupled to the lower housing by a hinge (26A, 26B), the upper housing including a display (14);
a first piece of sheet metal (152, fig. 11 reproduced below) between the upper metal wall (12B-1) and the lower metal wall (12B-2);
a second piece of sheet metal (152, fig. 11) between the first piece of sheet metal and the upper metal wall (12B-1), the first and second pieces of sheet metal (152) define a cavity (144) having an aperture (fig. 11), and the aperture faces a slot (20T, 20L, fig. 7) between the upper housing (12B-1) and the lower housing (12B-2); and
an antenna arm (60, fig. 11) disposed within the cavity (144) and configured to radiate through the aperture (para [0064]), wherein the antenna arm (60) is vertically interposed between the first piece of sheet metal and the second piece of sheet metal (fig. 11).
Although Barrera’051 does not explicitly disclose wherein the second piece of sheet metal is folded and welded to the first piece of sheet metal, the final product is the first and second pieces of sheet metal are connected to each to define a cavity which is shown in fig. 11 that the first and second pieces of sheet metal (152) define a cavity (144).
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of “the second piece of sheet metal is folded and welded to the first piece of sheet metal” – “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the piece of sheet metal 152 in fig. 11 of Berrera’051 from the first and second pieces of sheet metal as claimed, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Newin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177 (BdPatApp&Int 1969).
Barrera’824 applied as a teaching reference suggests the second piece of sheet metal (88, fig. 8, para [0066]) is folded and welded to the first piece of sheet metal (54), the first and second pieces of sheet metal define a cavity (102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold and weld the second piece of sheet metal taught in Berrera’051 to the first piece of sheet metal as suggested in Barrera’824 as claimed for the purpose of connecting the first and second pieces of sheet metal together to form a cavity in order to improve the gain and radiation pattern of the antenna (Barrera’824, para [0066]).
The combination of Berrera’051 and Barrera’824 does not disclose a dielectric layer that covers the aperture; and an antenna arm disposed within the cavity and configured to radiate through the aperture and the dielectric layer, wherein the antenna arm is separated from the dielectric layer by a non-zero distance.
Sato suggests a dielectric layer (19, fig. 33) that covers the aperture (between 13a and 13b); and an antenna arm (26) configured to radiate through the aperture and the dielectric layer (fig. 33), wherein the antenna arm is separated from the dielectric layer by a non-zero distance (fig. 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dielectric cover as suggested in Sato to cover the aperture taught in Berrera’051 and Barrera’824 as claimed for the purpose of protecting the electronic components inside the laptop computer from dirt and external damage.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Barrera’051 discloses wherein the antenna arm (60, fig. 11) is mounted to a lateral surface of the first piece of sheet metal (fig. 11 above: the upper surface of “first piece of sheet metal”).
Regarding claim 3, Barrera’051 discloses the laptop computer of claim 2, further comprising a return path (62, fig. 11) that couples the antenna arm (60) to the lateral surface of the first piece of sheet metal (fig. 11 above: the upper surface of “first piece of sheet metal”).
Regarding claim 4, Barrera’051 discloses the laptop computer of claim 3, further comprising: a third piece of sheet metal (fig. 5, para [0048]) that includes the antenna arm (60) and the return path (62).
Regarding claim 5, Barrera’051 discloses the laptop computer of claim 4, further comprising: a dielectric block (74, fig. 11) mounted to the lateral surface of the first piece of sheet metal (fig. 11 above: the upper surface of “first piece of sheet metal”).
The combination of Barrera’051 and Barrera’824 does not disclose the antenna arm being laterally interposed between the dielectric block and the dielectric layer.
Sato suggests the antenna arm (26, fig. 33) being laterally interposed between the dielectric block (17) and the dielectric layer (19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the antenna arm taught in Barrera’051 and Barrera’824 to be between the dielectric block and the dielectric layer as suggested inn Sato as claimed for the purpose of placing the antenna arm closer to the aperture in order to improve the signal strength radiating through the aperture to outside of the laptop computer to improve the quality of the wireless communication.
Regarding claim 6, Barrera’051 discloses wherein the cavity (144, fig. 11) comprises air between the antenna arm (60) and the dielectric layer (the aperture, fig. 11 above).
Regarding claim 9, Barrera’051 discloses wherein a lateral surface of the antenna arm (60, fig. 11) is orthogonal to a lateral surface of the first piece of sheet metal (fig. 11 above: the upper surface of “first piece of sheet metal”).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Rupakula et al, US-20220094067-A1 (hereinafter Rupakula).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato does not disclose the laptop computer of claim 5, further comprising: a layer of adhesive that couples the third piece of sheet metal to the dielectric block.
Rupakula discloses the laptop computer further comprising: a layer of adhesive (102, fig. 9, para [0096]) that couples the third piece of sheet metal (72) to the dielectric block (117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a layer of adhesive as taught in Rupakula to the laptop computer taught in Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato as claimed for the purpose of attaching the third piece of sheet metal to the dielectric block in order to keep the third piece of sheet metal including the antenna arm in place to maintain the wireless communication.
Regarding claim 8, Barrera’051 discloses the laptop computer of claim 7, further comprising: a tunnel in the dielectric block (para [0062]: an opening or cavity, i.e. tunnel, within dielectric block/substrate 74); and a coaxial cable (50, fig. 6) that extends through the tunnel and that is coupled to the antenna arm at an antenna feed terminal (44).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ng et al, US-20170133762-A1 (hereinafter Ng).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato does not disclose wherein the second piece of sheet metal has a first portion separated from the first piece of sheet metal by a first height, the second piece of sheet metal has a second portion separated from the first piece of sheet metal by a second height less than the first height, the first portion is laterally interposed between the second portion and the dielectric layer, and the antenna arm is interposed between the first portion and the first piece of sheet metal.
Ng suggests wherein the second piece of sheet metal has a first portion (24, fig. 2B) separated from the first piece (44) by a first height, the second piece of sheet metal has a second portion (22) separated from the first piece (44) by a second height less than the first height, and the antenna arm (40) is interposed between the first portion (24) and the first piece (44).
Although Barrera’051, Barrera’824, Sato and Ng does not disclose the first portion is laterally interposed between the second portion and the dielectric layer, Sato discloses the antenna arm (26) disposed next to the dielectric layer (19) to radiate through the aperture and the dielectric layer (fig. 33) and Ng discloses the antenna arm (40, fig. 2B) is disposed in the first portion (24), the combination implies that the first portion is disposed next to the dielectric layer, therefore the first portion is interposed between the second portion and the dielectric layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second piece of sheet metal taught in Barrera’051, Barrera’824, Sato to have different portions with different heights as suggests in Ng as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the dimensions of the cavity depending on the dimensions of other components inside the cavity in order to achieve desired radiation pattern and antenna beam steering beam (Ng, para [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Barrera’051 discloses the laptop computer of claim 10, further comprising: a first conductive gasket (160, fig. 11) that couples the first portion of the second piece of sheet metal (152) to the upper metal wall (12B-1); and a second conductive gasket (158) that couples the first piece of sheet metal (152) to the lower metal wall (12B-2).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guterman et al, US-20160261022-A1 (hereinafter Guterman).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato does not disclose the laptop computer of claim 1, further comprising: a third piece of sheet metal between the upper metal wall and the lower metal wall;
a fourth piece of sheet metal between the third piece of sheet metal and the upper metal wall, wherein the fourth piece of sheet metal is folded and welded to the third piece of sheet metal, the third and fourth pieces of sheet metal define an additional cavity having an additional aperture, the additional aperture faces the slot between the upper housing and the lower housing, and the dielectric layer covers the additional aperture; and an additional antenna arm disposed within the additional cavity and configured to radiate through the additional aperture and the dielectric layer, wherein the additional antenna arm is separated from the dielectric layer by the non-zero distance.
Guterman discloses the laptop computer comprises a plurality of cavity-backed antennas (40, fig. 8, para [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the laptop computer taught in Barrera’051, Barrera’824 and Sato with a third and fourth pieces of sheet metal defining an additional cavity and an additional antenna arms disposed within the additional cavity as claimed since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). The motivation stems from the need to provide more antennas in different location in different directions of the laptop computer in order to improve the quality of the wireless communication.
Claims 13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera et al, US-20190356051-A1 (hereinafter Barrera’051) in view of Sato, US-20040051670-A1.
Regarding claim 13, Barrera’051 discloses the following:
a laptop computer comprising:
a lower housing (12B, fig. 1) that includes an upper metal wall (12B-1, fig. 7, para [0086]) and a lower metal wall (12B-2);
an upper housing (12A) coupled to the lower housing by a hinge (26A, 26B), the upper housing including a display (14);
sheet metal (152) mounted between the upper metal wall (12B-1) and the lower metal wall (12B-2), wherein the sheet metal defines a cavity (144), the sheet metal includes a first wall (“second piece of sheet metal”, fig. 11 above) and a second wall (“first piece of sheet metal”) at opposing sides of the cavity, the cavity has an aperture (“aperture”) facing a slot (20T, 20L, fig. 7) between the upper housing (12B-1) and the lower housing (12B-2), and the first wall is bent towards and coupled to the second wall at a side of the cavity opposite the aperture (fig. 11);
a dielectric block (74, fig. 11) in the cavity and mounted to the second wall (fig. 11 above: the upper surface of “first piece of sheet metal”); and
an antenna resonating element (60) within the cavity (144),
Barrera’051 does not disclose a dielectric layer that covers the aperture; the antenna resonating element mounted to a side of the dielectric block facing the aperture, wherein the antenna resonating element is configured to convey radio-frequency signals through the aperture and the dielectric layer.
Sato suggests a dielectric layer (19, fig. 33) that covers the aperture (between 13a and 13b); the antenna resonating element (26) mounted to a side of the dielectric block (28 of antenna 17, fig. 11) facing the aperture (fig. 33), wherein the antenna resonating element is configured to convey radio-frequency signals through the aperture and the dielectric layer (fig. 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dielectric cover as suggested in Sato to cover the aperture taught in Berrera’051 as claimed for the purpose of protecting the electronic components inside the laptop computer from dirt and external damage.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 16, Barrera’051 discloses wherein the cavity (144, fig. 11) comprises air between the antenna resonating element (60) and the dielectric layer (the aperture, fig. 11 above).
Regarding claim 17, Barrera’051 discloses wherein the second wall (“first piece of sheet metal”, fig. 11 above) is planar and the antenna resonating element (60) is orthogonal to the second wall (fig. 11).
Regarding claim 19, Barrera’051 discloses the following:
a laptop computer comprising:
a lower housing (12B, fig. 1) that includes an upper metal wall (12B-1, fig. 7, para [0086]) and a lower metal wall (12B-2);
an upper housing (12A) coupled to the lower housing by a hinge (26A, 26B), the upper housing including a display (14);
a first piece of sheet metal (“first piece of sheet metal”, fig. 11 above);
a second piece of sheet metal (“second piece of sheet metal”) bent towards the first piece of sheet metal, wherein a cavity (144) is interposed between the first and second pieces of sheet metal, the cavity has an aperture (“aperture”), and the second piece of sheet metal is coupled to the first piece of sheet metal at a side of the cavity opposite the aperture (fig. 11);
a third piece of sheet metal (60) within the cavity (144) and mounted to the first piece of sheet metal (fig. 11); and
a radio-frequency transmission line (50) coupled to the third piece of sheet metal (60) within the cavity (fig. 11).
Barrera’051 does not disclose a dielectric layer that covers the aperture; the third piece of sheet metal being configured to radiate through the aperture and the dielectric layer.
Sato suggests a dielectric layer (19, fig. 33) that covers the aperture (between 13a and 13b); the third piece of sheet metal being configured to radiate through the aperture and the dielectric layer (fig. 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the dielectric cover as suggested in Sato to cover the aperture taught in Berrera’051 as claimed for the purpose of protecting the electronic components inside the laptop computer from dirt and external damage.
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is “configured to” perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
Regarding claim 20, Barrera’051 discloses wherein third piece of sheet metal (60, fig. 11) is orthogonal to the first piece of sheet metal (fig. 11).
Barrera’051 does not disclose wherein the third piece of sheet metal is separated from the dielectric layer by a non-zero distance.
Sato suggests the third piece of sheet metal (26, fig. 33) is separated from the dielectric layer (19) by a non-zero distance (fig. 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the third piece of sheet metal taught in Berrera’051 from the dielectric layer by a non-zero distance as suggested in Sato as claimed for the purpose of keeping the third piece of sheet metal inside the cavity formed by the first and second pieces of sheet metal in order to enhance the gain and directionality of the radio-frequency signals handled by the third piece of sheet metal (Barrera’051, para [0060]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera’051, and Sato as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Barrera et al, US-20200303824-A1 (hereinafter Barrera’824).
Regarding claim 14, Barrera’051 discloses wherein the sheet metal comprises a first piece of sheet metal that includes the first wall and a second piece of sheet metal that includes the second wall (fig. 11).
Although Barrera’051 does not explicitly disclose the first piece of sheet metal being welded to the second piece of sheet metal at the side of the cavity opposite the aperture, the final product is the first and second pieces of sheet metal are connected to each to define a cavity which is shown in fig. 11 that the first and second pieces of sheet metal (152) define a cavity (144).
Examiner’s Note regarding the process of “the first piece of sheet metal being welded to the second piece of sheet metal” – “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. "In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. (See MPEP 2113, Section I).
Barrera’824 applied as a teaching reference suggests the first piece of sheet metal (88, fig. 8, para [0066]) being welded to the second piece of sheet metal (54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fold and weld the first piece of sheet metal taught in Berrera’051 to the second piece of sheet metal as suggested in Barrera’824 as claimed for the purpose of connecting the first and second pieces of sheet metal together to form a cavity in order to improve the gain and radiation pattern of the antenna (Barrera’824, para [0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera’051, and Sato as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ng et al, US-20170133762-A1 (hereinafter Ng).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Barrera’051 and Sato does not disclose wherein the first wall has a first portion separated from the second wall by a first height and has a second portion separated from the second wall by a second height less than the first height, the antenna resonating element being interposed between the second wall and the first portion of the first wall.
Ng suggests wherein the first wall has a first portion (24, fig. 2B) separated from the second wall (44) by a first height and has a second portion (22) separated from the second wall (44) by a second height less than the first height, the antenna resonating element (40) being interposed between the second wall (44) and the first portion (24) of the first wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first wall taught in Barrera’051 and Sato to have different portions with different heights as suggests in Ng as claimed for the purpose of adjusting the dimensions of the cavity depending on the dimensions of other components inside the cavity in order to achieve desired radiation pattern and antenna beam steering beam (Ng, para [0024]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrera’051 and Sato as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Guterman et al, US-20160261022-A1 (hereinafter Guterman).
Regarding claim 18, Barrera’051 discloses the laptop computer of claim 17, further comprising: a hole in the dielectric block (para [0062]: an opening or cavity, i.e. hole, in the substrate/dielectric block 74); a coaxial cable (50) that extends along the second wall and through the hole (fig. 6), the coaxial cable being coupled to an antenna feed terminal (44) on the antenna resonating element
The combination of Barrera’051 and Sato does not disclose the laptop computer further comprising: additional sheet metal mounted between the upper metal wall and the lower metal wall, wherein the additional sheet metal defines an additional cavity, the additional sheet metal includes a third wall and a fourth wall at opposing sides of the additional cavity, the additional cavity has an additional aperture facing the slot between the upper housing and the lower housing, the third wall is bent towards and coupled to the fourth wall at a side of the additional cavity opposite the additional aperture, and the dielectric layer covers the additional aperture; an additional dielectric block in the additional cavity and mounted to the fourth wall; and an additional antenna resonating element within the additional cavity and mounted to a side of the additional dielectric block facing the additional aperture.
Guterman discloses the laptop computer comprises a plurality of cavity-backed antennas (40, fig. 8, para [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the laptop computer taught in Barrera’051 and Sato with the additional sheet metal defines an additional cavity including a third and fourth walls, an additional dielectric block and an additional antenna resonating element as claimed since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (CA7 1977). The motivation stems from the need to provide more antennas in different location in different directions of the laptop computer in order to improve the quality of the wireless communication.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, 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
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights