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 January 26th, 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi et al. (US 9265958 B2), herein referred to as Joshi and further in view of Guo et al. (US 8201746 B2), herein referred to as Guo.
Regarding claim 1, Joshi discloses an electronic device (Fig. 7A) comprising: a conductive housing; (200) a dielectric cover mounted to the conductive housing (Col. 1, lines 20-24); a dielectric carrier (302), and an antenna resonating element (112) interposed between the dielectric carrier1 and the dielectric cover, the antenna resonating element being configured to radiate through the dielectric cover (col. 2 lines 58-60).
Joshi does not disclose a conductive shield formed from conductive traces patterned onto the second shot of plastic.
However, Guo discloses a dielectric carrier having a first section1 (8) and a second section (1) on the first section, a conductive shield (20) formed from conductive traces on the second section (column 5, lines 35-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the electronic device of Joshi with a conductive shield formed from conductive traces patterned onto the second shot of plastic1, as taught by Guo, to prevent influence on underlying electronics by the antenna (col. 5, lines 23-26).
1The specific method of manufacturing the carrier, such as the language of “a shot of plastic” is not germane to the patentability of the claim, and is therefore given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 2, Joshi and Guo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Joshi does not disclose wherein the first shot of plastic is interposed between the second shot of plastic and the antenna carrier.
However, as discussed in claim 1, the limitation of “a shot of plastic” is not germane to the patentability of the claim and is therefore given no patentable weight. The structure of the carrier is not affected by the method of manufacturing.
Claims 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshi and Guo and further in view of Tianang et al. (US 11909120 B1), herein referred to as Tianang.
Regarding claim 3, Joshi and Guo render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Joshi does not disclose a biasing member mounted to the dielectric carrier and configured to press the antenna resonating element against the dielectric cover.
However, Tianang discloses a biasing member (324) mounted to a dielectric carrier (323). While Tianang does not specifically teach the biasing member pressing the antenna resonating element against a dielectric cover, the underlying concept of providing structural support to the antenna element (col. 6 lines 45-48), is equivalent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified device of Joshi, a biasing member mounted to the dielectric carrier and configured to press the antenna resonating element against the dielectric cover, as suggested by the teachings if Tianang, in order to provide structural support (col. 6 lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 4, Joshi, Guo, and Tianang render obvious all limitations of base claim 3.
Joshi does not disclose wherein the biasing member comprises foam.
However, Tianang does disclose wherein the biasing member (324) comprises foam (col 6 lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified device of Joshi wherein the biasing member comprises foam, as taught by Tianang, for its shock absorbing properties (col. 6 lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 5, Joshi, Guo, and Tianang render obvious all limitations of base claim 3.
Joshi does not disclose wherein the biasing member is mounted to the first shot of plastic.
However, Tianang discloses wherein the biasing member (324) is mounted to the dielectric carrier (323).
As previously discussed, the specifics to the method of manufacturing the dielectric carrier is not germane to the patentability of the claims, and is therefore given no patentable weight. The structure of the carrier is not affected by the method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified device of Joshi wherein the biasing member is mounted to the first shot of plastic, as suggested by the teachings of Tianang, in order to provide a base for the member within the device.
Regarding claim 6, Joshi, Guo, and Tianang render obvious all limitations of base claim 3.
Joshi also discloses wherein the dielectric carrier comprises: a dielectric cap (104) adhered to the dielectric carrier (302).
Joshi does not disclose the biasing member being mounted on the dielectric cap.
However, Tianang discloses wherein the dielectric carrier comprises: a dielectric cap (430-431) adhered to the dielectric carrier (323), the biasing member (324) being mounted on the dielectric cap (431, fig. 4).
As previously discussed, the specifics to the method of manufacturing the dielectric carrier is not germane to the patentability of the claims, and is therefore given no patentable weight. The structure of the carrier is not affected by the method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of the references and make the modified device of Joshi, the biasing member being mounted on the dielectric cap, as suggested by Tianang, to further reduce outside influence (co. 7 lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 7, Joshi, Guo, and Tianang render obvious all limitations of base claim 6.
Joshi does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric carrier further comprises: an air cavity between the first shot of plastic and the dielectric cap.
However, Joshi does teach a cavity between the carrier (302) and the dielectric cap (104). The gap of Joshi is filled with a dielectric. However, air, in itself, is a dielectric, and vacant a specific dielectric constant, is equivalent.
Regarding claim 8, Joshi, Guo, and Tianang render obvious all limitations of base claim 3.
Joshi also discloses wherein the dielectric cover has a three-dimensional curvature (se fig. 11 and 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 allowed.
Claims 8-12 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art is Joshi. Joshi discloses an antenna assembly comprising: a first substrate; a second substrate molded onto the first substrate; conductive traces plated onto outer surfaces of the second substrate.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, a flexible printed circuit overlapping the first and second substrates; and an antenna resonating element on the flexible printed circuit, the first substrate being interposed between the antenna resonating element and the second substrate, and the antenna resonating element being backed by an antenna cavity having edges defined by the antenna resonating element and the conductive traces.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art is Azad et al. (EP 4415165 A1). Azad discloses A head-mounted device comprising: a chassis; a cover mounted to the chassis and having a compound curvature.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest, in combination with other claimed limitations, wherein the chassis is conductive, and a dielectric carrier having a first substrate formed from a shot of injection- molded plastic and having a second substrate formed from a shot of plateable grade plastic molded onto the first substrate; a flexible printed circuit having an antenna resonating element configured to radiate through the cover; conductive traces plated onto surfaces of the second substrate opposite the first substrate, the conductive traces defining walls of a cavity-back for the antenna resonating element; and a biasing member mounted to the dielectric carrier and configured to press the flexible printed circuit against the cover.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON S WOODS whose telephone number is (571)270-1525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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 571-270-7893. 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.
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845