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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 reciting “at least one via hole adjacent the fill-cut pattern for impedance matching” is indefinite, since it’s not understood (a) how the via hole is used “for impedance matching”, (b) which of the claimed elements the via hole impedance matches to, and (c) how impedance matching occurs absent any impedance matching circuitry.
There should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable printed circuit board.
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, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Kurashima” (US 20130093642).
Claim 1: Kurashima discloses a printed circuit board comprising:
a first (top) surface (of substrate 211, Fig. 18);
a second (bottom) surface that is substantially parallel to the first surface;
a pattern antenna 220 on the first surface;
a first trace 222 for transferring a signal between a radio frequency integrated circuit 214 (Fig. 4) on the first surface and the pattern antenna (¶ 67); and
a fill-cut pattern 230 (Fig. 18) on the second surface and covering the first trace (in plan view),
wherein the fill-cut pattern is formed by removing a portion of a first ground pattern in a line shape corresponding to the first trace (see Fig. 18 and ¶ 108).
Claim 11: Kurashima fails to expressly teach wherein a width of the fill-cut pattern is wider than a width of the first trace.
However, 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).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kurashima’s invention such that a width of the fill-cut pattern is wider than a width of the first trace, in order to obtain desired functionality, such as tuned antenna operational parameters, in a targeted electronic device (Kurashima, ¶ 173).
Claim 12: Kurashima teaches the printed circuit board as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the pattern antenna is connected (via 140, Fig. 1) to the first ground pattern.
Claim 16: Kurashima teaches the printed circuit board as claimed in claim 1, wherein a conductive pattern is not at a region corresponding to the pattern antenna on the second surface (see Figs. 18 and 20).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashima (cited above) in view of “Abiri” (US 11888218).
Claim 13: Kurashima teaches the printed circuit board as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second ground pattern 210A (Fig. 18) on the first surface.
Kurashima is silent regarding the second ground pattern spaced apart from the first trace to surround the first trace in plan view.
Abiri discloses a second ground pattern 50 (Fig. 2) on the first (top) surface, and spaced apart from the first trace 30 to surround the first trace in plan view (Fig. 2B).
Abiri teaches “Positioned below PCB 15 is ground plane 20. To eliminate or substantially reduce surface waves, patch antenna 10 is enclosed with conductive walls 40 that are formed in substrate 15 and connected to ground plane 20. Metal traces 50 are configured to shield any routing and circuitry that may be present around antenna 10.” (Col. 2, ll. 54-59)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kurashima’s invention such that the second ground pattern spaced apart from the first trace to surround the first trace in plan view, in order to shield any routing and circuitry that may be present around the pattern antenna.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashima (cited above) in view of “Girard” (US 10326206).
Claim 19: As best understood, Kurashima fails to expressly teach at least one via hole adjacent the fill-cut pattern for impedance matching.
Girard discloses at least one via hole 330 (Fig. 3) adjacent the fill-cut pattern for impedance matching.
Girard teaches “Vias 330a-n may provide additional conductive surfaces for radiation by antenna 300. As described earlier, the vias are spaced at a small fraction of the wavelength for the operating frequency for antenna 300 (e.g., one tenth of a wavelength). The small spacing causes the vias to act as if they are continuous and result in additional metal surface area and material thickness for antenna 300. The additional metal surface area reduces resistive losses and improves antenna efficiency. However, the vias passing through material 345 and 350 may also further reduce the size or length of antenna 300.” (Col. 7, ll. 55-65)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ at least one via hole adjacent Kurashima’s fill-cut pattern for impedance matching, in order to improve antenna efficiency and reduce size or length of the pattern antenna.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurashima (cited above) in view of “Seo” (US 20200127404).
Claim 20: Kurashima fails to expressly teach wherein the printed circuit board comprises a flexible printed circuit board.
Seo discloses wherein the printed circuit board (710, 720; Fig. 7A) comprises a flexible printed circuit board 720.
Seo teaches in ¶ 119, “According to an embodiment, the FPCB 720 may include the first end 721 electrically coupled with the first PCB 710 and a second end 722 electrically coupled with the antenna structure 740. For example, the FPCB 720 may, for example, include one of the first FPCB 431, second FPCB 432, third FPCB 433, and fourth FPCB 434 of FIG. 4. The first end 721 may be electrically coupled with the first connector 711, and the second end 722 may be coupled with a second connector 741 included in the antenna structure 740. The antenna structure 740 may be electrically coupled with the first wireless communication circuit 750 mounted on the first PCB 710 through the FPCB 720.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Kurashima’s invention such that the printed circuit board comprises a flexible printed circuit board, in order to facilitate electrical coupling between the antenna and the integrated circuit within a portable electronic device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 14-15 and 17-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hovmoller (US 10938097)
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