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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
The Examiner appreciate the time and the effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case. The Application argues that the prior art fails to disclose “a length of the closed slot is from 27mm to 33mm, and a width of the closed slot is from 2mm to 4mm”. However, as shown below, the size of the resonating slot is an optimum value selected or set to achieve a result effective variable. To support this, Han et al. (US 20180342794) has been presented to disclose a closed slot sized as claimed.
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20050153756) in view of Han et al. (US 20180342794).
Regarding claim 1:
Sato et al. disclose (in Fig. 7B) an antenna structure (7), comprising: a feeding radiation element (70), having a feeding point (11); a first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L), having a first grounding point (74R), wherein the first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L) is adjacent to the feeding radiation element (70); a second grounding radiation element (73L), having a second grounding point (74L); a connection radiation element (75L), coupled between the first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L) and the second grounding radiation element (73L); an extension radiation element (72L), coupled to the connection radiation element (75L), wherein a closed slot (See Fig.) is surrounded by the connection radiation element (75L) and the extension radiation element (72L); and a dielectric substrate (1), wherein the feeding radiation element (70), the first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L), the second grounding radiation element (73L), the connection radiation element (75L), and the extension radiation element (72L) are disposed on the dielectric substrate (1).
Sato et al. are silent on that a length of the closed slot is from 27 mm to 33 mm, and a width of closed slot is from 2 mm to 4 mm.
However, Han et al. teaches a length of a closed slot (114) is from 20 mm to 250 mm, and a width of the closed slot is from 10 mm to 30 mm (Para. 0071, Lines 8-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to apply the teachings of Han and select the length of the closed slot from 27 mm to 33 mm, and a width of closed slot from 2 mm to 4 mm in Sato’s antenna structure for the benefit of optimizing setting that maximizes received signal strength (Para. 0082, Lines 27-30) thereby ensuring that antenna efficiency is satisfactory regardless of the frequency of operation and regardless of the environmental loading conditions of the antenna (Para. 0007, Lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 2:
Sato et al. disclose a notch region (See Fig.) is defined by the first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L), the connection radiation element (75L), and the second grounding radiation element (73L).
Regarding claim 4:
Sato et al. disclose a first loop path is formed by the first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L), the extension radiation element (72L), and the second grounding radiation element (73L).
Regarding claim 5:
Sato et al. disclose a second loop path is formed by the first grounding radiation element (7R and 7L), the connection radiation element (75L), and the second grounding radiation element (73L).
Regarding claim 6:
Sato et al. disclose a length of the first loop path is greater than that of the second loop path (See Fig.).
Claims 3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20050153756) in view of Han et al. (US 20180342794) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190198975).
Regarding claim 3:
Sato is silent on that the feeding radiation element substantially has an L-shape and extends into the notch region.
Chen discloses (in Figs. 1, 4A-4C) the feeding radiation element (defined by 130 and 140) substantially has an L-shape (See Figs.) and extends into the notch region (defined by the area formed by 110, 120, 160 and 170).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feeding radiation element substantially as an L-shape and extend into the notch region as taught by Chen into the modified device of Sato for the benefit of ensuring an effective radiation element for reducing the total antenna size and increasing the antenna operation bandwidth (Para. 0044, Lines 7-9).
Regarding claims 8-10:
Sato is silent on that a length of the first loop path is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band as required by claim 8;
a length of the second loop path is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the second frequency band as required by claim 9; and
a length of the feeding radiation element is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the second frequency band as required by claim 10.
Chen et al. disclose a length of the first loop path (420) is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band (Para. 0043, Lines 6-8; See Fig. 4B);
a length of the second loop path (430) is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the second frequency band (Para. 0043, Lines 9-12; See Fig. 4C);
a length of the feeding radiation element (defined by 130 and 140) is substantially equal to 0.25 wavelength of the second frequency band (Para. 0043, Lines 2-5; See Fig. 4A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the loop paths and the feeding radiation element as 0.5 and 0.25 wavelength respectively at their respective bands as taught by Chen et al. into the device of Lin for the benefit of optimizing the operation frequency band and the impedance matching of the antenna structure of the mobile device (Para. 0043, Lines 12-14) for maximum power transfer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 20050153756) in view of Han et al. (US 20180342794) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yeh (US 20150280319).
Regarding claim 7:
Sato disclose the antenna structure covers a first frequency band and a second frequency band (Para. 0071, Lines 1-7).
Sato is silent on that the first frequency band is from 700 MHz to 800 MHz, and the second frequency band is from 1710 MHz to 2170 MHz.
Yeh discloses the antenna structure covers a first frequency band and a second frequency band, the first frequency band is from 700 MHz to 800 MHz, and the second frequency band is from 1710 MHz to 2170 MHz (Para. 0003, Lines 7-14; Para. 0010, Lines 3-5; Para. 0015, Lines 3-5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the antenna structure covers a first frequency band and a second frequency band, the first frequency band is from 700 MHz to 800 MHz, and the second frequency band is from 1710 MHz to 2170 MHz as taught by Yeh into the device of Sato for the benefit of allowing the mobile antenna to simultaneously support the existing low and high frequency bands (Para. 0005, Lines 1-3).
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 BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 at 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845