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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends in pages 13-14 of the remarks:
Claim 1 recites "a first patch, "a feed terminal coupled to the first patch, " "a second patch on the substrate and laterally separated from the first patch by a first gap," and "a third patch on the substrate and laterally separated from the first patch by a second gap" (emphasis added).
In the Office Action, it was suggested that patch 140 in FIGS. 1-3 of So is relevant to the "first patch" of claim 1 and that feed via 121 a-b in FIGS. 1-3 of So is relevant to the "feed terminal" of claim 1. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
So's feed vias 121 a-b are not coupled to patch 140. On the contrary, as shown in FIG. 3 of So, feed vias 121 a-b are coupled to patch 130, which is located in layer of substrate 220 that is below patch 140. So simply makes no mention of any feed vias or any "feed terminals" that are coupled to patch 140.
…
So therefore fails to show or suggest "a first patch, " "a feed terminal coupled to the first patch, "a second patch on the substrate and laterally separated from the first patch by a first gap, " and "a third patch on the substrate and laterally separated from the first patch by a second gap, as recited by claim 1 (emphasis added)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “coupled to” has broader scope than, e.g., “directly connected to”. In antenna engineering, a skilled artisan would appreciate that feed lines are often electromagnetically (or capacitively) coupled to radiating patches. So clearly exemplifies such coupling in at least Figs. 3 and 7. Nonetheless, So teaches in various paragraphs, reproduced below:
[0083] When an electrical signal is transmitted to the first antenna patch 130, the first antenna patch 130 and the second antenna patch 140 are coupled, and the electrical signal is transmitted to the second antenna patch 140 by the coupling.
..
[0086] The third antenna patch 150 forms an additional coupling with the second antenna patch 140, whereby the second antenna patch 140 and the third antenna patch 150 may form additional impedances, so that bandwidths of the antenna patches 130 and 140 may be increased in size without increasing a size of the second antenna patch 140.
[0087] The first antenna patch 130, the second antenna patch 140, and the third antenna patch 150 may transmit RF signals by receiving electrical signals through the first feed via 121a and the second feed via 121b, the first feed pattern 122a and the second feed pattern 122b, and the third feed pattern 123a and the fourth feed pattern 123b.
As such, So’s feed terminals 121a-b are unambiguously “coupled to” the first patch 140.
Regarding lateral separation, So in Fig. 5 clearly depicts such arrangement, and teaches in ¶ [0085], “The third antenna patch 150 is disposed around the second antenna patch 140 to surround the second antenna patch 140, and the second antenna patch 140 and the third antenna patch 150 together form a substantially quadrangular planar shape. The second antenna patch 140 and the third antenna patch 150 may be spaced apart from each by a constant distance dc1.”
Nevertheless, gist of the instant invention appears to be, inter alia, an antenna 40 (Fig. 8) having directly fed patch 116 forming an inverted-F antenna, coupled to indirectly fed patches 114-1, 114-2 forming L-shaped antennas, where all three patches are shorted to ground, and all three patches collectively resonate at a first 5 GHz WLAN frequency band and a second 8.5 GHz Wi-Fi 6E band. ¶¶ [0095]-[0096] of the printed publication.
However, merely pieces of the invention have been claimed.
Absent specific structural limitations recited to clearly discern the invention, prior art reads well on the breadth of claim 1.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “So” (US 20220123479).
Claim 1: So discloses an antenna comprising:
a substrate 220 (Fig. 1);
a first patch 140 on the substrate;
a feed terminal 121a-b (Fig. 2) coupled to the first patch (¶ 87);
a second patch 150 (top-left of 140 in Fig. 5) on the substrate and laterally separated from the first patch by a first gap dc1; and
a third patch 150 (top-right of 140) on the substrate and laterally separated from the first patch by a second gap (equivalent to dc1 on the right side).
So fails to expressly teach wherein the first patch is configured to indirectly feed the second patch via a first near-field electromagnetic coupling across the first gap, and the first patch is configured to indirectly feed the second third patch via a second near-field electromagnetic coupling across the second gap.
However, So teaches in ¶ 86, “The third antenna patch 150 forms an additional coupling with the second antenna patch 140, whereby the second antenna patch 140 and the third antenna patch 150 may form additional impedances, so that bandwidths of the antenna patches 130 and 140 may be increased in size without increasing a size of the second antenna patch 140.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use So’s antenna such that the first patch is configured to indirectly feed the second patch via a first near-field electromagnetic coupling across the first gap, and the first patch is configured to indirectly feed the second third patch via a second near-field electromagnetic coupling across the second gap, in order to form additional impedances, thereby increasing antenna bandwidth.
Claims 2-3: So teaches the antenna of claim 1, wherein the first patch has a first length db1, the second patch has a second length, and the third patch has the second length (see Fig. 5);
wherein the second length (unlabeled, but clearly seen in Fig. 5) is less than the first length db1.
Claim 8: So teaches the antenna of claim 1, wherein the first patch is laterally interposed between the second patch and the third patch (see Fig. 5).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Baliarda” (US 7423593).
Claim 21: Baliarda discloses an electronic device comprising:
a substrate 3 (Fig. 1);
a first metal patch 12 (Fig. 3) on a (top) surface of the substrate;
a radio-frequency transmission line coupled to a terminal 13 on the first metal patch;
a second metal patch 11 on the surface of substrate and laterally separated (left) from the first metal patch by a first gap (equivalent to 18 in Fig. 4); and
a third metal patch 11 on the surface of the substrate and laterally separated (right) from the first metal patch by a second gap (see Fig. 3 and col. 4, ll. 30-42).
wherein
the first metal patch is configured to electromagnetically excite the second metal patch to radiate via a first near-field electromagnetic coupling across the first gap (col. 6, second para.), and
the first metal patch is configured to electromagnetically excite the third metal patch via a second near-field electromagnetic coupling across the second gap (col. 6, second para.).
(A skilled artisan would appreciate that when parasitic patches 11 are coupled to the driven patch 12 through gaps 18, near-field electromagnetic couplings inherently occur.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 9-12 and 22-23 are 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.
Claims 17-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art shows, teaches or fairly suggests the features of “a fourth patch on the surface and separated from the third patch by a second gap, the third patch being configured to indirectly feed the fourth patch via a second near-field electromagnetic coupling across the second gap, and the third and fourth patches being configured to radiate in a second frequency band different from the first frequency band with a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization.”
Claim 18 depends therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US 11349204)
Huang (US 5220335)
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 HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights