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 filed November 3rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Krogerus does not disclose the amended claim language. Specifically with regard to “wherein an edge of the conductive connection member is aligned to an end of the shielding layer”. However, as seen in figure 4B of Krogerus, 411 is plainly aligned with the end of the shielding layer.
Furthermore, the applicant asserts that 411 is a solder, however Krogerus itself does not assert that. However, that is not to say that it is not, however, the standard of determining the broadest reasonable interpretation applies to the application and to the prior art, and a person of ordinary skill would find that the prior art reads on the claim language of the application. Further, the applicant asserts that if 411 is a solder, it would be impossible to precisely align the connection member with the end of the shielding layer. Without a positive assertion from the prior art, it would not be reasonable to make an assumption that the connection member could not be precisely aligned.
Note: The reference to He in the rejection heading was incorrect with regard to the specific claim numbers. This has been corrected. The rejections which relied upon He have not changed.
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, 5-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogerus et al. (WO 2019154501 A1), herein referred to as Krogerus and further in view of Carlson et al. (US 5719353 A), herein referred to as Carlson.
Regarding claim 1, Krogerus discloses an electronic device (page 1, lines 15-16), comprising: a device body (page 1, described in lines 16-18); and an antenna module (fig. 4a), disposed in the device body and comprising: a conductive structure (402), comprising a structure body and a slot (407), wherein the slot is formed on the structure body and penetrates the structure body in a thickness direction of the structure body (See fig. 4b); and a coaxial cable (page 9, line 25), comprising a core wire (409), a shielding layer (410), wherein the shielding layer (410) wraps the core wire (409, see fig. 4b), a section of the shielding layer (410) is connected to the structure body , a physical portion of the structure body and the section of the shielding layer are respectively located on two opposite sides of the slot (407) in a width direction of the slot (see figs, 4a and 4b), and a section of the core wire (409) extends out from the section of the shielding layer (410) and overlaps the slot (407) and the physical portion in the thickness direction (see fig. 4b) and a conductive connection member (211), the conductive connection member is disposed on the structure body (see fig. 4b), and the section of the shielding layer (410) contacts the conductive connection member (411), so as to be connected to the structure body through the conductive connection member (page 10, lines 1-3), wherein an edge of the conductive connection member is aligned to an end of the shielding layer (see fig. 4b).
Krogerus does not specifically disclose an outer jacket and wherein the outer jacket wraps the shielding layer, a section of the shielding layer extends out from the outer jacket.
However, the common construction of a coaxial cable is well known in the art, and as seen in Carlson, includes an outer jacket (22) which wraps the shielding layer (16), and therefore a section of the shielding layer extends out from the outer jacket (at 411).
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 device of Krogerus with an outer jacket and wherein the outer jacket wraps the shielding layer, a section of the shielding layer extends out from the outer jacket, as suggested by the teachings of Carlson, to protect the inner cable (col. 2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 5, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
The embodiment of Krogerus figure 4a-d does not disclose wherein the slot is an open slot.
However, Krogerus does disclose an open slot within the same device (page 20, lines 29-30).
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 Krogerus wherein the slot is an open slot, as further taught by Krogerus, to fine tune for certain frequencies (page 21, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus also discloses wherein the slot is a closed slot (see figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 7, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus also discloses wherein the slot has a horizontal linear shape (see figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 8, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus also discloses wherein the conductive structure, the section of the core wire, and the section of the shielding layer constitute a slot antenna (fig. 4a-d, page 5, line 22).
Regarding claim 9, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus does not disclose wherein the coaxial cable comprises an inner insulation layer, and the inner insulation layer completely wraps the section of the core wire extended from the shielding layer.
However, as discussed previously in claim 1, the common construction of a coaxial cable is well known, and Carlson teaches a coaxial cable with an inner insulation layer (14) which completely wraps the core layer (12).
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 Krogerus wherein the coaxial cable comprises an inner insulation layer, and the inner insulation layer completely wraps the section of the core wire extended from the shielding layer, as suggested by the teachings of Carlson, to protect the core layer.
Regarding claim 10, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus also discloses wherein in the width direction of the slot, the section of the shielding layer (410) and the slot (407) are spaced from each other by a distance (see figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 11, Krogerus discloses an antenna module (fig. 4a) comprising: a conductive structure (402), comprising a structure body and a slot (407), wherein the slot is formed on the structure body and penetrates the structure body in a thickness direction of the structure body (See fig. 4b); a coaxial cable (page 9, line 25), comprising a core wire (409), a shielding layer (410), wherein the shielding layer (410) wraps the core wire (409, see fig. 4b), a section of the shielding layer (410) is connected to the structure body (), a physical portion of the structure body and the section of the shielding layer are respectively located on two opposite sides of the slot (407) in a width direction of the slot (see figs, 4a and 4b), and a section of the core wire (409) extends out from the section of the shielding layer (410) and overlaps the slot (407) and the physical portion in the thickness direction (see fig. 4b) and a conductive connection member (211), the conductive connection member is disposed on the structure body (see fig. 4b), and the section of the shielding layer (410) contacts the conductive connection member (411), so as to be connected to the structure body through the conductive connection member (page 10, lines 1-3), wherein an edge of the conductive connection member is aligned to an end of the shielding layer (see fig. 4b).
Krogerus does not specifically disclose an outer jacket and wherein the outer jacket wraps the shielding layer, a section of the shielding layer extends out from the outer jacket.
However, the common construction of a coaxial cable is well known in the art, and as seen in Carlson, includes an outer jacket (22) which wraps the shielding layer (16), and therefore a section of the shielding layer extends out from the outer jacket (at 411).
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 antenna module of Krogerus with an outer jacket and wherein the outer jacket wraps the shielding layer, a section of the shielding layer extends out from the outer jacket, as suggested by the teachings of Carlson, to protect the inner cable (col. 2, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 15, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
The embodiment of Krogerus figure 4a-d does not disclose wherein the slot is an open slot.
However, Krogerus does disclose an open slot within the same device (page 20, lines 29-30).
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 antenna of Krogerus wherein the slot is an open slot, as further taught by Krogerus, to fine tune for certain frequencies (page 21, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 16, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus also discloses wherein the slot is a closed slot (see figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 17, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus also discloses wherein the slot has a horizontal linear shape (see figs. 4a-4b).
Regarding claim 18, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus also discloses wherein the conductive structure, the section of the core wire, and the section of the shielding layer constitute a slot antenna (fig. 4a-d, page 5, line 22).
Regarding claim 19, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus does not disclose wherein the coaxial cable comprises an inner insulation layer, and the inner insulation layer completely wraps the section of the core wire extended from the shielding layer.
However, as discussed previously in claim 1, the common construction of a coaxial cable is well known, and Carlson teaches a coaxial cable with an inner insulation layer (14) which completely wraps the core layer (12).
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 antenna of Krogerus wherein the coaxial cable comprises an inner insulation layer, and the inner insulation layer completely wraps the section of the core wire extended from the shielding layer, as suggested by the teachings of Carlson, to protect the core layer.
Regarding claim 20, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus also discloses wherein in the width direction of the slot, the section of the shielding layer (410) and the slot (407) are spaced from each other by a distance (see figs. 4a-4b).
Claims 2-3, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krogerus and Carlson and further in view of He (CN 101764280 A), herein referred to as He.
Regarding claim 2, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus does not disclose further comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is a part of the keyboard bracket.
However, He teaches a device comprising a keyboard bracket (22), wherein the conductive structure is a part of the keyboard bracket (para. 0042, attached translation). The specific method of manufacturing/attaching is not germane to the patentability of the device itself, and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
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 Krogerus comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is a part of the keyboard bracket, as taught by He, to regulate impedance (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 3, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Krogerus does not disclose further comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is assembled to the keyboard bracket.
However, He discloses further comprising a keyboard bracket (22), wherein the conductive structure is assembled to the keyboard bracket (para. 0042). The specific method of manufacturing/attaching is not germane to the patentability of the device itself, and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
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 Krogerus further comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is assembled to the keyboard bracket, as taught by He, to regulate impedance (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 12, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus does not disclose further comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is a part of the keyboard bracket.
However, He teaches a device comprising a keyboard bracket (22), wherein the conductive structure is a part of the keyboard bracket (para. 0042). The specific method of manufacturing/attaching is not germane to the patentability of the device itself, and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
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 antenna of Krogerus comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is a part of the keyboard bracket, as taught by He, to regulate impedance (para. 0042).
Regarding claim 13, Krogerus and Carlson render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Krogerus does not disclose further comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is assembled to the keyboard bracket.
However, He discloses further comprising a keyboard bracket (22), wherein the conductive structure is assembled to the keyboard bracket (para. 0042). The specific method of manufacturing/attaching is not germane to the patentability of the device itself, and therefore has not been given patentable weight.
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 antenna of Krogerus further comprising a keyboard bracket, wherein the conductive structure is assembled to the keyboard bracket, as taught by He, to regulate impedance (para. 0042).
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 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/BRANDON SEAN WOODS/Examiner, Art Unit 2845