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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/2/2024 was filed accordingly. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “single-ended transceiver port” of claims 7 and 8
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "250" (Fig 2) and "260" (Specification, Para 35, 36) have both been used to designate “Battery”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “250” has been used to designate both Battery and Power Management Circuit.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Numbering error, “Shown in Fig 12 is antenna 12” of Para 54, should read “Shown in Fig 12 is antenna 1200”
Typo, “Have of 3/2” of Para 69 should read “Half of 3/2”.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, Grammar/Typo “module comprises further comprises”
Claim 9, Grammar, “wherein THE hearing assistive device further comprises”
Claim 15, Grammar, “different ones of THE plurality of radiating elements”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12, 13, 14 and 18 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "The printed circuit board" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the printed circuit board” will be referred to using the “a printed circuit board” language of Claim 11.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "The printed circuit board" in line 2.
Claim 13 depends on Claim 12 for the limitation, and inherits the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "The plurality of radiating elements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the plurality of radiating elements” will be referred to using the “a plurality of radiating elements” language of Claim 11.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "The plurality of radiating elements" in line 1. Claim 14 depends on Claim 13 for the limitation, and inherits the insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "The plurality of printed line sections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the plurality of printed line sections” will be referred to using the “a printed circuit board” language of Claim 16.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "The printed circuit board" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the printed circuit board” will be referred to using the “a printed circuit board” language of Claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elghannai et al (US 20210337323).
Regarding Claim 1, Elghannai et al. teaches:
A system (Elghannai, Fig 1, 100), comprising: a hearing assistive device (Elghannai, Fig 1, 102) that comprises, at least, a dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114c and 115B and 115A) and at least one circuit (Elghannai Fig 3, 202, 204, 206, 208, 212, or 216), wherein: the at least one circuit (Elghannai Fig 3, 202, 204, 206, 208, 212, or 216) is configured to, at least, process signal (Elghannai, para 8) communicated via the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114c and 115B and 115A); the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114c and 115B and 115A) comprises, at least, a first antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115A, 114D and 115B) and a second antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C); and the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115A, 114D and 115B) and the second antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C) are configured to ensure that reception of signals (Elghannai, para 8) via the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114c and 115B and 115A) meets performance criteria that comprise, at least, optimizing reception of signals (Elghannai, para 8) in a particular direction (annotated Fig 4) relative to a head of user when using the hearing assistive device (Elghannai Fig 1, 102), and having a directional radiation pattern pointing outward (annotated Fig 4) from an ear of the user when using the hearing assistive device (Elghannai Fig 1, 102).
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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.
PNG
media_image1.png
327
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Elghannai et al. teaches:
wherein the second antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C); comprises a wire conductor antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C); with stub tuning (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C, a non-terminated wire with an adjustable length) in a different plane (annotated Elghannai Fig 2b) from the first antenna, (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115A, 114D and 115B) and wherein the second antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C) has a length shorter (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C, X<<L); than a wavelength (Elghannai, Para 29, L=wavelength) of pre-determined signal frequency (Elghannai, Para 29).
PNG
media_image2.png
370
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Elghannai et al. teaches:
wherein the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115A, 114D and 115B) is configured as a dipole (annotated Elghannai Fig 2b), and wherein the second antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C) is arranged as a half-way dipole (annotated Elghannai Fig 2b, half dipole with portion of first antenna as shared/borrowed conductor).
PNG
media_image3.png
403
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Elghannai et al. teaches:
wherein the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115A, 114D and 115B) and the second antenna (Elghannai, Fig 2b, 114C) are connected to each other (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115b and 114c are connected together, Para 48) and/or to a single-ended transceiver port.
Regarding Claim 9, Elghannai et al. teaches:
hearing assistive device (Elghannai, Fig 1, 102) further comprises a housing (Elghannai Para 37, housing) having a faceplate (Elghannai Para 37, faceplate), and wherein the faceplate (Elghannai Para 37, faceplate) is configured to support (Elghannai Para 37, “Fit within a faceplate”) use of the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114c and 115B and 115A).
Regarding Claim 19, Elghannai et al. teaches:
wherein the hearing assistive device (Elghannai, Fig 1, 102) comprises an in-the-ear (ITE) hearing assistive device (Elghannai, Para 23, ITE).
Regarding Claim 20, Elghannai et al. teaches:
wherein the least one circuit (Elghannai Fig 3, 202, 204, 206, 208, 212, or 216) comprises one or more of a wireless transceiver, an audio signal processing circuit (Elghannai Fig 3, 206), and a power management circuit.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elghannai et al (US 20230387575).
Regarding Claim 1, Elghannai et al. teaches:
A system (Elghannai, Fig 1, 100), comprising: a hearing assistive device (Elghannai, Fig 1, 102a) that comprises, at least, a dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c) and at least one circuit (Elghannai, Fig 2, 204,206, or 208), wherein: the at least one circuit (Elghannai, Fig 2, 204,206, or 208) is configured to, at least, process signal communicated via the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c); the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c) comprises, at least, a first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c, 602c, 604c, 614c) and a second antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 610c); and the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c, 602c, 604c, 614c) and the second antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 610c) are configured to ensure that reception of signals via the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c) meets performance criteria that comprise, at least, optimizing reception of signals in a particular direction relative to a head (Elghannai, Para 50, toward the front) of user when using the hearing assistive device (Elghannai Fig 1, 102a), and having a directional radiation pattern pointing outward from an ear (Elghannai, Para 50, toward the front, away from) of the user when using the hearing assistive device (Elghannai Fig 1, 102a).
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.
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.
Regarding Claim 9, Elghannai et al teaches:
wherein hearing assistive device (Elghannai, Fig 1, 102a) further comprises a housing (Elghannai Fig 3a, 218) having a faceplate (Elghannai Fig 3a, 302), and wherein the faceplate (Elghannai Fig 3a, 302) is configured to support use (Elghannai, Para 45, hole-thru, and Para 43 second antenna in faceplate groove) of the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c).
Regarding Claim 10, Elghannai et al teaches:
wherein the faceplate (Elghannai Fig 3a, 302) comprises an indented recess (“cavity” defined by housing, Para 5; faceplate 302 is part of housing 218) configured for securing the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c, 602c, 604c, 614c) of the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c).
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 2,3,and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elghannai et al (US 20210337323).
Regarding Claim 2, Elghannai et al. teaches:
wherein the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114c and 115B and 115A) comprises an asymmetric long wire antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 114A and 115A non-symmetrical to 115B).
Elghannai et al. does not explicitly teach:
the first antenna having a length greater than a wavelength of pre-determined signal frequency.
Elghannai et al. does disclose: “The length of a dipole antenna specifically designed for a particular frequency is approximately lambda/2, where lambda equals the wavelength of the electromagnetic signal the antenna receives or the wavelength at which the antenna is to transmit an electromagnetic signal” (Elghannai Para 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to adjust the length of the first antenna to greater than a wavelength of a pre-determined signal frequency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would allow for the tuning of a desired frequency response (Elghannai, para 34)
Regarding Claim 3, Elghannai et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first antenna has a total length equal to 3/2 of the wavelength of pre-determined signal frequency.
Elghannai et al. does disclose: “The length of a dipole antenna specifically designed for a particular frequency is approximately lambda/2, where lambda equals the wavelength of the electromagnetic signal the antenna receives or the wavelength at which the antenna is to transmit an electromagnetic signal” (Elghannai Para 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to adjust the length of the first antenna to a length equal to 3/2 of the wavelength of a pre-determined signal frequency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would allow for the tuning of a desired frequency response (Elghannai, para 34)
Regarding Claim 5, Elghannai et al. does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second antenna has a total length equal to a quarter wavelength of a pre-determined signal frequency.
Elghannai et al. does suggest: wherein the second antenna has a total length equal to a quarter wavelength of a pre-determined signal frequency (Elghannai, less than L/2, Para 50, “For instance, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, the length of first segment {second antenna) is X which is substantially less than L/2 or substantially less than lambda/4. In some examples, the length of first segment may be less than 50%, 70%, or 80% the length of first segment 114A [L/2, half wavelength].”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to adjust the length of the second antenna to total length equal to a quarter wavelength of a pre-determined signal frequency, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Doing so would allow for the tuning of a desired frequency response (Elghannai, para 50).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elghannai et al (US 20210337323) in view of Shriner et al. US 20220021989 and further in view of Boyd (US 6362559) .
Regarding Claim 8, Elghannai does not teach:
the dual antenna module comprises further comprises an integrated ceramic transformer, and wherein the integrated ceramic transformer connects the first antenna and the second antenna to a single-ended transceiver port.
Shriner et al. does teach:
the dual antenna module (Shriner Fig 3A, 302 and Fig 12B, 1212 and 1212) comprises further comprises [sic] an integrated transformer (Shriner Fig 3A, 304-1), and wherein the integrated transformer (Shriner Fig 3A, 304-1) connects the first antenna (Shriner Fig 12B, 1212) and the second antenna (Shriner Fig 12B, 1212) to a single-ended transceiver port (Shriner Fig 3A, 308).
PNG
media_image4.png
388
795
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
324
329
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Shriner et al, and add an integrated transformer to connect the first antenna and second antenna to a single ended transceiver port. Doing so would allow for the antennas to receive signals from the transceiver port, while offering electrical separation from the transceiver (Shriner et al. Para 32).
Shriner does not explicitly teach:an integrated ceramic transformer.
Boyd does teach:
an integrated ceramic transformer (Boyd Fig 5, 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Boyd, and select an integrated ceramic transformer. Doing so would allow for the transformer to avoid producing unwanted electromagnetically induced noise via the ceramic core (Boyd. Para 6).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elghannai et al (US 20210337323) in view of Ledingham (US 20220369049).
Regarding Claim 18, Elghannai teaches:
the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 2b, 115A, 114D and 115B) is subjected to a wavelength reduction effect (Elghannai, para 48, “dielectric constant of the environment is leveraged to reduce the size of the antenna {reduced size=reduced wavelength).
Elghannai does not teach:
wherein the plurality of printed line sections (Ledingham, para 8, formed in conductive layers of PCB) of the first antenna (Fig 5b, 100, 102, and 104) … on a substrate of the printed circuit board (PCB) (Ledingham Para 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Ledingham, and make the first antenna comprise of a plurality of printed line sections on a substrate of a printed circuit board. Doing so would allow for the first antenna to be manufactured as a single component within the printed circuit board layers, while providing a ground plane (Ledingham Para 37).
When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions (i.e. wave reduction effect) are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.
Claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elghannai et al (US 20230387575) in view of Ledingham (US 20220369049)
Regarding Claim 11, Elghannai does teach:
wherein the dual antenna module (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c and 610c) comprises a plurality of radiating elements (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314 and Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 610c, and 614c) arranged to form the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c) and the second antenna (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314 and Fig 6c, 610c).
Elghannai does not teach:
wherein the dual antenna module comprises a printed circuit board (PCB)
Ledingham does teach
wherein the dual antenna module (Fig 5b, 100, 102, and 104) comprises a printed circuit board (PCB) (Ledingham Para 35)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Ledingham, and include a printed circuit board (PCB) with the plurality of radiating elements. Doing so would allow for additional components to be mounted for tuning or to provide interconnection points for operation (Ledingham Para 29).
Regarding Claim 12, Elghannai does teach:
A printed circuit board (Elghannai Fig 3b, 306)
Elghannai does not teach explicitly teach:
wherein the printed circuit board (PCB) comprises a flexible printed circuit board (PCB)
Ledingham does teach
wherein the printed circuit board (PCB) (Ledingham para 29) comprises a flexible printed circuit board (PCB) (Ledingham Claim 9),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Ledingham, and to make the printed circuit board comprise a flexible printed circuit board (PCB). Doing so would allow for the printed circuit board to flex to a desired configuration, while still fitting within the limited space (Ledingham Para 27).
Regarding Claim 13, Elghannai teaches:
wherein the plurality of radiating elements (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314 and Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 610c, and 614c) comprises one or more lines (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 614c) and wherein the one or more lines (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 614c) form the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 600c).
Elghannai does not teach:
one or more printed micro-strip lines on the printed circuit board (PCB) with a dielectric constant
Ledingham does teach:
one or more printed micro-strip lines (Ledingham, para 8, formed in conductive layers of PCB) on the printed circuit board (PCB) with a dielectric constant (Ledingham Para 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Ledingham, and make the plurality of radiating element comprise of microstrip lines on a printed circuit board to form the first antenna. Doing so would allow for the first antenna to provide interconnections to additional components (Ledingham Para 36, coupled to transceiver via microstrip traces).
Regarding Claim 14, Elghannai in view of Ledingham teaches:
wherein the plurality of radiating elements (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314 and Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 610c, and 614c) comprises one or more metallic wire conductors (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314) attached to (Elghannai Fig 6c, 610c) at least one of the one or more printed micro-strip lines (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c), and wherein the one or more metallic wire conductors (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314) form the second antenna (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314).
Regarding Claim 15, Elghannai in view of Ledingham teaches:
wherein the plurality of radiating elements (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314 and Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 610c, and 614c) is arranged such that different ones of plurality of radiating elements (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314 and Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, 610c, and 614c) are placed and/or otherwise manipulated to sit on different axis (annotated Elghannai Fig 3c) relative to one another.
PNG
media_image6.png
519
568
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Elghannai teaches:
wherein the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c) comprises a plurality of line sections (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c), and wherein the second antenna (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314) comprises a wire conductor (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314) extending from (Fig 6c, 610c) the first antenna (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c) at one of the plurality of line sections (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c).
Elghannai does not teach:
wherein the first antenna comprises a printed line on a printed circuit board (PCB) having a plurality of printed line sections.
Ledingham does teach:
wherein the first antenna comprises a printed line (Ledingham, para 8, formed in conductive layers of PCB) on a printed circuit board (PCB) (Ledingham Para 35) having a plurality of printed line sections (Ledingham, para 8, formed in conductive layers of PCB).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was
effectively filed to incorporate the teaching of Ledingham, and make the first antenna comprise a printed line on a printed circuit board having a plurality of printed line sections. Doing so would allow for the first antenna to provide interconnections to additional components (Ledingham Para 36, coupled to transceiver via microstrip traces).
Regarding Claim 17, Elghannai teaches:
wherein the plurality of printed line sections (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c) comprises three printed line sections (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c), and wherein the wire conductor (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314) of the second antenna (Elghannai Fig 3c, 314) extends from (Elghannai Fig 6c, 610c) a third printed line section (Elghannai Fig 6c, 604c) from the three printed line sections (Elghannai Fig 6c, 602c, 604c, and 614c).
PNG
media_image7.png
307
510
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ANDREW KUBERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5605. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0430-1400 PST.
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
/DAVID ANDREW KUBERA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights