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 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 3-4, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20090153409 A1), herein referred to as Chiang and further in view of Hill et al. (US 5917454 A), herein referred to as Hill.
Regarding claim 1, Chiang discloses a multi-band (para. 0010) conformal slot antenna (fig. 9) comprising: an antenna ground plane (52) including two or more radiating slots (top 90 and second 90 are near the same length, and the third and bottom 90 are of similar lengths) of substantially equal length therein having first and second ends, wherein each of the two or more radiating slots are attached a the first end (left) and open at the second end (right), wherein the antenna ground plane (52) has a length L (height as looking at fig. 9) and a width W (width as looking at fig. 9) of the antenna ground plane (52); and wherein the antenna ground plane comprises a flexible material (para. 0043).
Chiang does not specifically disclose wherein the antenna comprising a flexible material bends into a form factor that allows the multi-band conformal slot antenna to be positioned in an enclosure that has a length less than the length L of the antenna ground plane.
However, simply bending a flexible material to fit within a smaller space is well known within the art, such as seen in Hill, wherein an antenna (102) comprising a flexible material (claim 1 “flexible conductive strips”) bends into a form factor that allows the similar antenna of Hill (102) to be positioned in an enclosure (103) that has a length less than the length L of the antenna ground plane (see fig. 1, antenna 102 is rolled up into a cylinder in order to fit within the diameter of the housing).
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 of Chiang wherein the antenna comprising a flexible material bends into a form factor that allows the multi-band conformal slot antenna to be positioned in an enclosure that has a length less than the length L of the antenna ground plane, as taught by Hill, to fit into a smaller form factor (col. 3 lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 3, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang also discloses wherein the multi-band conformal slot antenna (fig. 9) operates in two or more frequency bands (para. 0010).
Regarding claim 4, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang does not disclose wherein the length L of the antenna ground plane is about 150 mm and the width W of the antenna ground plane is about 57mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the antenna of Chiang wherein the length L of the antenna ground plane is about 150 mm and the width W of the antenna ground plane is about 57mm to allow for slots operating within specific bands, 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).
Regarding claim 7, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang also discloses wherein the antenna retains bandwidth and efficiency when bent. A person of ordinary skill within the art would reasonably expect that an antenna designed to be bent would retain functionally upon being bent). In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
Regarding claim 8, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang also discloses wherein the multi-band conformal slot antenna further comprises metal elements (para. 0032) and wherein the multi-band conformal slot antenna retains bandwidth and efficiency when in close proximity to the metal elements. A person of ordinary skill within the art would reasonably expect that an antenna designed to be in close proximity to metal elements would retain functionally in such an environment). In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
Regarding claim 9, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 8.
Chaing also discloses wherein the metal elements comprise a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or at least one battery (para. 0032, batteries).
Regarding claim 10, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang also discloses wherein an edge E (top of 20 in fig. 9) of the antenna ground plane is extended a distance D beyond open ends of the two or more radiating slots (top of 90(s) in fig. 9).
Claim 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang and Hill and further in view of Ueda (CN 107785655 A), herein referred to as Ueda.
Regarding claim 2, Chaing and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang does not disclose wherein the form factor of the bent antenna ground plane is substantially a "U" shape.
However, Ueda discloses an antenna wherein the form factor of the bent antenna ground plane (grounding conductor on FPC substrate 50) is substantially a “U” shape (fig. 5).
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 Chiang wherein the form factor of the bent antenna ground plane is substantially a "U" shape, as taught by Ueda, to fit within the device (fig. 5).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang and Hill and further in view of Downey et al. (US 11658398 B1), herein referred to as Downey.
Regarding claim 5, Chiang and Hill render obvious all limitations of base claim 1.
Chiang does not disclose wherein the flexible material comprises a thin flexible copper clad laminate.
However, Downey discloses a flexible carrier material (202a) comprising a thin flexible copper clad laminate (col. 3, lines 44-50).
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 Chiang wherein the flexible material comprises a thin flexible copper clad laminate, as taught by Downey, to allow metallic elements on flexible carriers (col. 3 lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang, Hill, and Downey render obvious all limitations of base claim 5.
Chiang does not disclose wherein a thickness of the thin flexible copper clad laminate is about 0.16mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the modified antenna of Chiang wherein a thickness of the thin flexible copper clad laminate is about 0.16mm to optimize flexibility and strength, 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).
Claims 11, 13-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang and further in view of Hill and Smith (US 20100253538 A1), herein referred to as Smith.
Regarding claim 11, Chiang discloses a multi-band (para. 0010) conformal slot antenna (fig. 9) comprising: an antenna ground plane (52) including two or more radiating slots (top 90 and second 90 are near the same length, and the third and bottom 90 are of similar lengths) of substantially equal length therein, wherein the antenna ground plane (52) has a length L (height as seen in fig. 9) and a width W (width as seen in fig. 9) of the antenna ground plane; and wherein the antenna ground plane comprises a flexible material (para. 0043).
Chiang does not disclose a smart meter comprising: an enclosure that houses electronics associated with a communications circuit of the smart meter; and a multi-band conformal slot antenna positioned in the enclosure; wherein the antenna comprising a flexible material bends into a form factor that allows the multi-band conformal slot antenna to be positioned in an enclosure that has a length less than the length L of the antenna ground plane.
However, simply bending a flexible material to fit within a smaller space is well known within the art, such as seen in Hill, wherein an antenna (102) comprising a flexible material (claim 1 “flexible conductive strips”) bends into a form factor that allows the similar antenna of Hill (102) to be positioned in an enclosure (103) that has a length less than the length L of the antenna ground plane (see fig. 1, antenna 102 is rolled up into a cylinder in order to fit within the diameter of the housing).
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 of Chiang wherein the antenna comprising a flexible material bends into a form factor that allows the multi-band conformal slot antenna to be positioned in an enclosure that has a length less than the length L of the antenna ground plane, as taught by Hill, to fit into a smaller form factor (col. 3 lines 6-14).
However, Smith discloses a smart meter (10) comprising: an enclosure (11) that houses electronics (18, 20) associated with a communications circuit of the smart meter (10); and a multi-band (para. 0017) conformal slot antenna (12) positioned in the enclosure (11).
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 use the antenna of Chiang in a smart meter comprising: an enclosure that houses electronics associated with a communications circuit of the smart meter; and a multi-band conformal slot antenna positioned in the enclosure, as taught by Smith, to provide untethered integral antenna elements (para. 0019).
Regarding claim 13, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang also discloses wherein the multi-band conformal slot antenna (fig. 9) operates in two or more frequency bands (para. 0010).
Regarding claim 14, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang does not disclose wherein the length L of the antenna ground plane is about 150 mm and the width W of the antenna ground plane is about 57mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the antenna of Chiang wherein the length L of the antenna ground plane is about 150 mm and the width W of the antenna ground plane is about 57mm to allow for slots operating within specific bands, 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).
Regarding claim 17, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang also discloses wherein the antenna retains bandwidth and efficiency when bent. A person of ordinary skill within the art would reasonably expect that an antenna designed to be bent would retain functionally upon being bent). In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
Regarding claim 18, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang also discloses wherein the multi-band conformal slot antenna further comprises metal elements (para. 0032) and wherein the multi-band conformal slot antenna retains bandwidth and efficiency when in close proximity to the metal elements. A person of ordinary skill within the art would reasonably expect that an antenna designed to be in close proximity to metal elements would retain functionally in such an environment). In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)
Regarding claim 19, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 18.
Chiang also discloses wherein the metal elements comprise a printed circuit board (PCB) and/or at least one battery (para. 0032, batteries).
Regarding claim 20, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang also discloses wherein an edge E (top of 20 in fig. 9) of the antenna ground plane is extended a distance D beyond open ends of the two or more radiating slots (top of 90(s) in fig. 9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang, Hill, and Smith and further in view of Ueda.
Regarding claim 12, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang does not disclose wherein the form factor of the bent antenna ground plane is substantially a "U" shape.
However, Ueda discloses an antenna wherein the form factor of the bent antenna ground plane (grounding conductor on FPC substrate 50) is substantially a “U” shape (fig. 5).
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 Chiang wherein the form factor of the bent antenna ground plane is substantially a "U" shape, as taught by Ueda, to fit within the device (fig. 5).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang, Hill, and Smith and further in view of Downey.
Regarding claim 15, Chiang, Hill, and Smith render obvious all limitations of base claim 11.
Chiang does not disclose wherein the flexible material comprises a thin flexible copper clad laminate.
However, Downey discloses a flexible carrier material (202a) comprising a thin flexible copper clad laminate (col. 3, lines 44-50).
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 Chiang wherein the flexible material comprises a thin flexible copper clad laminate, as taught by Downey, to allow metallic elements on flexible carriers (col. 3 lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 16, Chiang, Hill, Smith, and Downey render obvious all limitations of base claim 15.
Chiang does not disclose wherein a thickness of the thin flexible copper clad laminate is about 0.16mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the modified antenna of Chiang wherein a thickness of the thin flexible copper clad laminate is about 0.16mm to optimize flexibility and strength, 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).
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
Prosecution Insights