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 .
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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuna (12,142,819) in view of Lee (20230123914) & Navarro (10,734,710).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Kuna discloses an electronic device (i.e. mobile phone) (See fig. 1A) comprising: a housing comprising a first conductive portion 1012 (i.e. antenna element of an antenna array) disposed along a portion of a side surface of the housing, a second conductive portion 1012 (i.e. antenna element of the antenna array) disposed along another portion of the side surface, a non-conductive portion between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion (See fig. 10B and col. 22 lines 6-24), and a transceiver circuitry couple to the first and second conductive portions (See fig. 11 and col. 8 lines 22-26). However, Kuna does not explicitly mention the transceiver circuitry (i.e. wireless communication circuit) comprising phase shifter and power divider configured a recited in claims. Since Lee suggests a similar electronic device having a transceiver circuitry coupled to antenna elements of an antenna array (See fig. 12), wherein the transceiver circuitry comprising a phase shifter; a power divider that is connected to the first conductive portion (i.e. first antenna element), and is connected to the second conductive portion (i.e. second antenna element) through the phase shifter; and a wireless communication circuit, connected to the power divider (See figs. 2-3 and 12), configured to provide signal having a first phase and a first power to radiate a second signal from the first conductive portion and to radiate a third signal from the second conductive portion while the second signal is radiated from the first conductive portion (i.e. beam forming operation); and wherein the phase shifter, the power divider and the wireless communication circuit is disposed on at least one substrate (See figs. 4 and 12), wherein the second signal radiated from the first conductive portion has a second power divided from the first power by the power divider and the first phase (i.e. in case of phase value is adjusted to zero degree), and wherein the third signal radiated from the second conductive portion has a third power divided from the first power by the power divider and a second phase for a beamforming gain according to radiating the second signal and the third signal, and wherein the second phase is shifted from the first phase by the phase shifter (See figs. 2-3, 12 and par [0049-0050, 0053-0054, 0070]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the transceiver circuitry, as disclosed by Kuna, with such features suggested by Lee, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device for performing beam switching and/or beam forming operations. Further, since both Kuna & Lee do suggest that the electronic device (i.e. mobile phone) is capable of operating in various wireless networks, protocols and/or frequency bands (See Kuna, col. 5 lines 17-21 and col. 8 lines 1-15; See Lee, par [0111]) and mobile phone capable of communicating in both cellular and satellite networks is known in the art as suggested by Navarro (See figs. 1-2, 5-6 and col. 4 line 46 to col. 5 line 5); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configured the electronic device, as disclosed by Kuna & Lee, with capabilities of communicating in both cellular and satellite networks as suggested, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various communication modes.
Regarding claim 2, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. However, they do not mention that a difference between the first phase and the second phase is 40 to 60 degrees, for constructive interference of the second and third signals. Since Lee does discloses the amplitude and phase of each antenna element in the array can be adjusted (See figs. 2-3) and it is commonly known in the art, Official Notice taken by the examiner, that the amplitude and phase of each antenna element in the array can be controlled to create a desired (e.g., directional) pattern of constructive and destructive interference in the wavefront (i.e., “beam”); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the amplitude and phase of each antenna element in the array such that the first phase and the second phase is 40 to 60 degrees for creating constructive interference of the second and third signals, for the advantage of enhancing beam shaping.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claims 1 and 17. Lee further discloses data transmitted to the satellite by the radiating of the second signal is identical to data transmitted to the satellite by the radiating the third signal (i.e. beam forming operation) (See fig. 2 and par [0049-0050]).
Regarding claim 10, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. However, they do not explicitly mention that a distance between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion is shorter than a half wavelength of the second signal or the third signal. Since Kanu does suggest that the shapes, sizes, lengths, locations, or other dimensions or properties of the conductive portions can be varied (See col. 7 line 52 to col. 8 line 15); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the conductive portions such that a distance between the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion is shorter than a half wavelength of the second signal or the third signal, for the advantage of enhancing beam forming/shaping capabilities in order to accommodate the design intentions.
Regarding claim 11, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. Kuna further discloses the first conductive portion is symmetrical to the second conductive portion with respect to the non-conductive portion (See fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 12, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. Kuna further discloses the first conductive portion is asymmetrical to the second conductive portion with respect to the non-conductive portion (See fig. 10B).
Regarding claim 13, Kuna & Lee Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. However, they do not explicitly mention that the power divider comprises a plurality of passive elements. Since Official Notice taken by the examiner that power divider comprising a plurality of passive elements is commonly known in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize such power divider, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various types of power dividers.
Regarding claim 14, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. Kuna further discloses the housing comprises a first side surface, a second side surface extending perpendicularly to the first side surface from an end of the first side surface, and a third side surface extending parallel to the second side surface from another end of the first side surface, wherein the first conductive portion is disposed along a portion of the first side surface and the second side surface, wherein the second conductive portion is disposed along another portion of the first side surface and the third side surface, and wherein a distance from an end of the first conductive portion located at the second edge to the first side surface is equal to the distance from an end of the second conductive portion located at the third side surface to the first side surface (See figs. 10A and 10B).
Regarding claim 15, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. Kuna further discloses the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion operate as an antenna radiator (See figs. 10A and 10B) and Lee further discloses the amplitude and phase of each antenna element in the array can be adjusted (See figs. 2-3). However, they do not mention that a combined signal of the second signal radiated from the first conductive portion and the third signal radiated from the second conductive portion is transmitted in a direction perpendicular to the side surface. Since it is commonly known in the art, Official Notice taken by the examiner, that two radiation patterns transmitted from or received by the two antennas, respectively, the phase shifts between the two radiations patterns can be adjusted so that a combination of the radiation patterns corresponding to each phase shift can be generated to optimize the gain and signal quality in a target direction; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adjust the amplitude and phase of each antenna element (i.e. first and second conductive portions) in the array such that a combined signal of the second signal radiated from the first conductive portion and the third signal radiated from the second conductive portion (i.e. combination of the radiation patterns) is transmitted in a direction perpendicular to the side surface, for the advantage of enhancing beam forming/shaping operations.
Regarding claim 16, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claim 1. However, they do not explicitly mention that a frequency band of the first signal is 1.6 GHz to 1.7 GHz. Since Kuna does suggest that the device can operate on various frequency bands (See col. 8 lines 1-15); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the device to operate on a frequency band of 1.6 GHz to 1.7 GHz, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various frequency spectrums.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuna & Lee & Navarro as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Moretti (9,954,278).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, Kuna & Lee & Navarro disclose as cited in claims 1 and 17. However, they do not mention a ground portion in the housing, spaced apart from the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion; a first switch disposed between the first conductive portion and the ground portion; and a second switch disposed between the second conductive portion and the ground portion; wherein the first switch is configured to disconnect the first conductive portion and the ground portion, while the second signal of the first phase is transmitted in satellite communication, and wherein the second switch is configured to disconnect the second conductive portion and the ground portion, while the third signal is transmitted in cellular communication. Since Moretti suggests a similar electronic device, wherein a ground portion in the housing, spaced apart from the first conductive portion 1804 and the second conductive portion 1806; a first switch 1814 (i.e. shunt switch) disposed between the first conductive portion and the ground portion; and a second switch 1816 (i.e. shunt switch) disposed between the second conductive portion and the ground portion; wherein the first switch is configured to disconnect the first conductive portion and the ground portion, while the second signal of the first phase is transmitted, and wherein the second switch is configured to disconnect the second conductive portion and the ground portion, while the third signal is transmitted (See fig. 18A and col. 16 lines 19-52); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have included such feature as suggested by Moretti, for the advantage of selectively selecting antenna element of the antenna array for communication depending on communication mode (satellite or cellular) as well as preventing undesired coupling.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuna & Lee & Navarro as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwak (9,431,693).
Regarding claim 5, Kuna & Lee disclose as cited in claim 1. Kuna further discloses a display disposed on a surface of the housing (See fig. 1A); cameras configured to obtain an image (See fig. 11 and col. 22 lines 38-48); and wherein the housing includes a first side surface, a second side surface extending from an end of the first side surface in a direction perpendicular to the first side surface, a third side surface extending from another end of the first side surface in the direction perpendicular to the first side surface, and a fourth side surface between the second side surface and the third side surface and parallel to the first side surface (See figs. 10A and 10B). However, they do not explicitly mention that the device having a front camera positioned on a portion of the surface on which the display is disposed, such that at least part of the first conductive portion and at least part of the second conductive portion is disposed on the first side surface closer to the camera than the fourth side surface. Since Kwak suggests an electronic device having a front camera 121 positioned on a portion of the surface on which the display is disposed (See fig. 1); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have included, as suggested by Kwak, a front camera positioned on a portion of the surface on which the display is disposed, as such, at least part of the first conductive portion and at least part of the second conductive portion is disposed on the first side surface closer to the camera than the fourth side surface, for the advantage of providing the greater degree of freedom in arranging electronic components on the device.
Claims 6-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuna & Lee & Navarro as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Pajona (9,287,941).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 20, Kuna & Lee discloses as cited in claims 1 and 17. However, they do not mention that another wireless communication circuit distinct from the wireless communication circuit connected to the first conductive portion; wherein the other wireless communication circuit is configured to provide a fourth signal having a fourth power and radiated from the first conductive portion and wherein the other wireless communication circuit is configured to be inactivated while the second signal and the third signal are radiated for satellite communication or the wireless communication circuit is configured to be inactivated while the fourth signal is radiated from the first conductive portion for cellular communication. Since Pajona discloses a similar electronic device (See fig. 1), wherein two distinct wireless communication circuits connected to the same antenna ray (i.e. antenna elements or conductive portions); wherein the wireless communication circuits are configured to provide signals having powers and radiated from the antenna array, and wherein one of the wireless communication circuits is configured to be inactivated while the other operates (See fig. 2 and col. 3 line 11 to col. 4 line 11); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the device, disclosed by Kuna & Lee & Navarro, with such features (i.e. another distinct wireless communication circuit coupled to the same antenna array including first and second conductive portions) such that the other wireless communication circuit is configured to provide a fourth signal having a fourth power and radiated from the first conductive portion and wherein the other wireless communication circuit is configured to be inactivated while the second signal and the third signal are radiated in satellite communication mode or the wireless communication circuit is configured to be inactivated while the fourth signal is radiated from the first conductive portion in cellular communication mode, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to multiple transceivers for operating on different wireless communication protocols and/or modes.
Regarding claim 9, Kuna & Lee & Navarro & Pajona disclose as cited in claim 8. The other wireless communication circuit (i.e. LTE diversity transceiver) inherently comprises a filter coupled to the antenna elements (i.e. first conductive portion) and configured to filter at least a part of the fourth signal, while the second signal is radiated from the first conductive portion when the wireless communication circuit is activated.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648