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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 are currently pending. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/01/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that:
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that "one end of the first radiator is grounded by using the ground point, and an other end of the first radiator is provided with the feed point." The Examiner asserts that Yan discloses this arrangement. However, a review of Yan reveals a fundamentally different topology. Yan explicitly teaches that the feed probe is located in the middle of the unit, not at the opposite end from the ground point. Specifically, Yan states that the "feed probe is arranged in the middle of one side, close to the edge, of the composite left-right hand transmission line unit" (Yan at Abstract; see also Yan at [0034]). Because Yan feeds the antenna in the middle of the structure rather than at an end opposite the ground point, Yan fails to teach the claimed feed and ground arrangement.
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify that "there are at least two slots, wherein each of the at least two slots comprises an interdigital structure... connected in series to the first radiator, wherein the at least two slots split the first radiator into a plurality of zero-order antenna radiating elements that are not connected to each other." The Examiner conflates the gaps between the fingers of a single interdigital electrode in Yan with the claimed requirement of at least two distinct slots that penetrate the radiator. Yan teaches that "[t]he flexible radiator adopts an interdigital electrode" (Yan at Abstract). In Yan, the entire flexible radiator is formed as a single interdigital electrode. Yan does not disclose a continuous radiator body that is penetrated by multiple, distinct interdigital slots that split the radiator into a plurality of zero- order antenna radiating elements connected in series.
Finally, the Examiner acknowledges that Yan does not explicitly disclose "wherein a uniform magnetic field is distributed between the first radiator and a ground of the electronic device as a reference ground to achieve radiation in a zero-order mode." To bridge this gap, the Examiner relies on an inherency argument under MPEP § 2112.01, asserting that because Yan has a zero-order mode and the radiator is parallel to the ground, the uniform magnetic field is inherent. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Inherency requires that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily and inevitably present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2112). The claimed uniform magnetic field is not a necessary and inevitable result of any antenna operating in a zero-order mode. In the claimed invention, the uniform magnetic field is specifically achieved by connecting the distributed capacitors (formed by the interdigital slots) in series with the radiator to obtain the radiation feature of a current loop antenna (Specification at [0063]). In contrast, Yan's antenna is a Composite Right/Left-Handed (CRLH) transmission line unit that operates on a fundamentally different physical mechanism. The uniform magnetic field distribution is not a necessary and inevitable result of Yan's CRLH structure. Therefore, the Examiner's inherency argument is improper and respectfully traversed.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the following reasons:
Yan discloses one end of the first radiator (1, figs. 1-2) is grounded by using the ground point (figs. 1-2: right edge is connected to ground plane 3 via the short metal column 2), and an other end of the first radiator is provided with the feed point (figs. 1,2: left edge is connected to feed point 4). Moreover, Yan discloses “the feeding probe is set at the middle part of the composite left and right hand transmission line unit close to one side of the edge for feeding” (page 3, para 1, fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
398
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yan discloses there are at least two slots (fig. 2 below), wherein each of the at least two slots comprises an interdigital structure (fig. 2, page 3, para 5-7: interdigital electrodes on the left and the right of the radiator 1) which comprises alternately extending ends from opposite sides of the respective slot forming a distributed capacitor connected in series to the first radiator (fig. 2), wherein the at least two slots split the first radiator into a plurality of zero-order antenna radiating elements that are not connected to each other (fig. 2: the plurality of zero-order antenna radiating elements are separated by the “gap”).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the Remarks, Applicant stated that “the uniform magnetic field is specifically achieved by connecting the distributed capacitors (formed by the interdigital slots) in series with the radiator to obtain the radiation feature of a current loop antenna (Specification at [0063])” and the antenna structure in Yan is the same with the invention with the two interdigital slots (fig. 2, page 3, para 5-7: interdigital slots on the left and the right of the radiator 1) formed capacitors connected in series with the radiator (figs. 1-2), thus the skilled artisan would recognize that it would also be configured to, without undue experimentation, and able to have the predictable result of performing in a similar manner. According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Moreover, Kim et al (US-20080174503-A1), fig. 28, 29 and Lee et al (KR- 20200088151-A), fig. 2 cited in “Citation of Pertinent Art” of Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/01/2026 could also read on 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 1-2, 4-6, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al, CN-112290211-A (hereinafter Yan).
Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses the following:
a terminal antenna, wherein the terminal antenna is disposed in an electronic device, and the terminal antenna comprises:
a first radiator (1, fig. 1 below), a feed point (“feed point”), and a ground point (“ground point”); one end of the first radiator is grounded by using the ground point (fig. 1: connected to ground plane 3), and an other end of the first radiator is provided with the feed point (fig. 1); and
the first radiator is further provided with a slot (“gap”, fig. 2) that penetrates the first radiator (1), and there are at least two slots (fig. 2), wherein each of the at least two slots comprises an interdigital structure (fig. 2, page 3, para 5-7: interdigital electrodes on the left and the right of the radiator 1) which comprises alternately extending ends from opposite sides of the respective slot forming a distributed capacitor (page 6, last para) connected in series to the first radiator (figs. 1-2), wherein the at least two slots split the first radiator into a plurality of zero-order antenna radiating elements that are not connected to each other (figs. 1-2: the plurality of zero-order antenna radiating elements are separated by the “gap”).
Although Yan does not explicitly disclose wherein a uniform magnetic field is distributed between the first radiator and a ground of the electronic device as a reference ground to achieve radiation in a zero-order mode, Yan discloses the terminal antenna has radiation in zero-order mode (page 5, last para) and fig. 1 of Yan shows the first radiator 1 is parallel to the ground of the electronic device 3, it is construed that the magnetic field between the first radiator and a ground of the electronic device is distributed uniformly.
According to MPEP 2112.01 “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the terminal antenna taught in Yan having uniform magnetic field as claimed for the purpose of having same radiation signal throughout the antenna region in order to achieve the desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirements of the application.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yan discloses wherein an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna comprises at least a first frequency band and a second frequency band (920MHz and 433MHz, page 6, last para -page 7, para 1), the terminal antenna covers the first frequency band by using a resonance corresponding to a zero-order mode (page 6, last para - page 7, para 1), the resonance corresponding to the zero-order mode is generated by the slot of the interdigital structure (page 6, last para - page 7, para 1), the terminal antenna covers the second frequency band by using a resonance corresponding to a Loop mode (page 6, last para - page 7, para 1), and the first frequency band is different from the second frequency band (page 6, last para - page 7, para 1).
Regarding claim 4, Yan discloses wherein when lengths of the first radiator are different, frequency bands in which the resonance corresponding to where the Loop mode is located are different, and frequency bands in which the resonance corresponding to where the zero-order mode is located are also different (fig. 6-7, page 7, para 4).
Regarding claim 5, Yan discloses wherein when structure parameters of the interdigital structure are different, frequency bands in which the resonance corresponding to where the zero-order mode is located are different (fig. 6-7, page 7, para 4).
Although Yan does not disclose the structure parameter of the interdigital structure comprises at least one of the following: a slot width that is of the interdigital structure and that is parallel to the first radiator, a slot width that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator, or a length that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator, Yan discloses the slot width (gap, fig. 2) that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator or a length (Pl) that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator can be modified (page 7, para 6-7) and it is construed by one of ordinary skill in that art that changing these parameters will change the capacitively coupling between the parts of the radiator which will change the electric length of the radiator which would change the operating frequency of the antenna (Yan, fig. 6-7, page 7, para 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decide the structure parameters of the interdigital structure of the terminal antenna taught in Yan to one of the parameters as claimed for the purpose of fitting the antenna in limited space assigned in the electronic device and achieving the desired operating frequency.
Regarding claim 6, although Yan does not disclose wherein the slot width parallel to the first radiator is comprised in a range of 0.2 mm±20%, the slot width that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator is comprised in a range of 0.3 mm±20%, and the length that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator is comprised in a range of 2.1 mm±20%, Yan discloses the slot width (gap, fig. 2) that is of the interdigital structure equals 0.3mm and that is perpendicular to the first radiator or a length (Pl) that is of the interdigital structure and that is perpendicular to the first radiator equals 21.0mm and these values can be modified (page 7, para 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the slot width and slot length of the terminal antenna taught in Yan to be in the range as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to fit the antenna in limited space assigned in the electronic device and achieve the desired radiating characteristics depending on the requirement of the application.
Regarding claim 9, Yan discloses wherein there are two to five slots of the interdigital structure (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Yan discloses an electronic device (page 2, Background section), wherein the terminal antenna according to claim 1 is disposed in the electronic device (page 2, Background section), and when transmitting or receiving a signal, the electronic device transmits or receives the signal by using the terminal antenna (page 3, last para).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan as applied to claim 2 above, and in view of Hu et al, CN-110323541-A (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 3, Yan does not disclose wherein the slot is filled with a dielectric, the dielectric and the first radiator have different dielectric constants, and when the slot is filled with different dielectrics, the resonance corresponding to the zero-order mode covers different frequency bands.
Hu discloses wherein the slot (13, fig. 1) is filled with a dielectric (page 5, para 2), the dielectric and the first radiator have different dielectric constants (one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the dielectric material and the metal material of the first radiator would have different dielectric constants), and when the slot is filled with different dielectrics, the resonance corresponding to the zero-order mode covers different frequency bands (page 5, 2nd to last para or page 7, para 3: different material of the material of the slot 13 would change the capacitance coupling between 11 which creates an antenna covering different frequency bands).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the slot of the terminal antenna disclosed in Yan in different dielectric as disclosed in Hu as claimed for the purpose of achieving desired operating frequency depending on the requirements of the application.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hanyang et al, CN-106463827-B (hereinafter Hanyang).
Regarding claim 7, Yan does not disclose wherein the first radiator is disposed in a corner of the electronic device; the first radiator comprises a first part and a second part that are connected, the first part is disposed on a side edge that is of the electronic device and that corresponds to the corner, and the second part is disposed on a bottom edge that is of the electronic device and that corresponds to the corner; and the feed point is disposed at an end of the second part, and the ground point is disposed at an end of the first part.
Hanyang suggests wherein the first radiator is disposed in a corner of the electronic device (10, 11, 20 , fig. 5 reproduced below); the first radiator comprises a first part and a second part that are connected (fig. 5), the first part is disposed on a side edge that is of the electronic device and that corresponds to the corner (fig. 5), and the second part is disposed on a bottom edge that is of the electronic device and that corresponds to the corner (fig. 5); and the feed point (13) is disposed at an end of the second part, and the ground point (11) is disposed at an end of the first part (fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first radiator taught in Yan to be at the side edge and bottom edge of the electronic device as suggested in Hanyang as claimed since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The motivation stems from the need to fit the antenna in a limited space of the electronic device and achieve a desired beam direction radiated from the antenna depending on the requirement of the application.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Jia, CN-109244645-A.
Regarding claim 8, Yan does not disclose wherein the terminal antenna is disposed on a flexible printed circuit, the first radiator is a conductive structure on the flexible printed circuit, and the slot is provided on the conductive structure.
Jia discloses wherein the terminal antenna is disposed on a flexible printed circuit, the first radiator is a conductive structure on the flexible printed circuit, and the slot is provided on the conductive structure (page 9, para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the flexible printed circuit as suggested in Jia to the terminal antenna taught in Jan as claimed for the purpose of creating a substrate for the antenna to be disposed on and being flexible in order to give the antenna the flexibility to fit in limited space.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al, CN-113451741-A (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 10, Yan does not disclose wherein the terminal antenna further comprises a second radiator, the second radiator and the first radiator are not connected to each other, an end that is of the second radiator and that is away from a first part of the first radiator is grounded, and an end that is of the second radiator and that is close to the first part is suspended
Wang suggests wherein the terminal antenna further comprises a second radiator (310, fig. 12), the second radiator (310) and the first radiator (110) are not connected to each other, an end (320) that is of the second radiator (310) and that is away from a first part of the first radiator (110) is grounded (fig. 12), and an end that is of the second radiator and that is close to the first part (110) is suspended (fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second radiator as suggested in Wang to the terminal antenna taught in Yan as claimed for the purpose of adding additional operation frequency to the antenna (Wang, page 12, last para).
Regarding claim 11, Yan does not disclose wherein the operating frequency band of the terminal antenna further comprises a third frequency band, the third frequency band is different from the first frequency band or the second frequency band, the third frequency band is covered by the terminal antenna by using a resonance corresponding to a balanced mode, and the resonance corresponding to the balanced mode is generated by the second radiator.
Wang suggests wherein the operating frequency band of the terminal antenna further comprises a third frequency band (page 12, last para), the third frequency band is covered by the terminal antenna by using a resonance corresponding to a balanced mode and the resonance corresponding to the balanced mode is generated by the second radiator (page 12, last para).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the third frequency band as suggested in Wang to the terminal antenna taught in Yan as claimed for the purpose of designing an antenna operating in multiple frequencies in order to improve the wireless communication of the antenna.
Although the combination of Yan and Wang does not explicitly disclose the third frequency band is different from the first frequency band or the second frequency band, it is implied that the third frequency band is different from the first frequency band or the second frequency band because adding the second radiator would change the electric length of the antenna and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that changing the length of the antenna would change the operating frequency of the antenna.
Regarding claim 12, although the combination Yan and Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first frequency band, the second frequency band, and the third frequency band jointly cover 1.7 GHz to 2.7 GHz, Yan discloses the antenna can be configured to operate in 433MHz, 920MHz, 2.45GHz (page 3, last para) and Wang discloses the antenna can be configured to operate in 2620MHz to 2690MHz (page 7, para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the frequency bands of the antenna taught in Yan and Wang to cover 1.7GHz to 2.7GHz as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The motivation stems from the need to achieve the desired operating frequency range depending on the requirement of the application.
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 ANH N HO whose telephone number is (571)272-4657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/ANH HO/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights