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 with respect to claims 16 and 30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 16-19, 21-23, 25, 28 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210143536) in view of Yuhu (CN111162371B).
Regarding claim 16:
Park et al. disclose (in Figs. 6, 11A, 13 and 17A) a radiation field beam steering arrangement (500) comprising: a substrate (590) comprising a reflector surface (650); a conductive element (612) extending at least partially adjacent a periphery of said substrate (590); and at least one end-fire antenna element (AR1 and AR2) superimposed with said substrate (590) and comprising an antenna radiator (510) configured to generate a radiation field (along arrow 3) having a main beam direction oriented parallel to a main plane of the substrate (590).
Park et al. are silent on that said reflector surface comprising a plurality of reflectors, each reflector having a hollow profile and being configured to reflect at least a part of said generated radiation field towards said main beam direction, wherein said reflector surface comprises at least one first reflector and at least one second reflector aligned with the antenna radiator, and wherein said first reflector has a different dimension in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator than said second reflector to correspond to different wavelengths respectively.
Yuhu discloses (in Figs. 2-10) that said reflector surface (2) comprising a plurality of reflectors (21, 22), each reflector (21, 22) having a hollow profile (See Figs.) and being configured to reflect at least a part of said generated radiation field towards said main beam direction (Para. 0005, Lines 2-3; Para. 0014, Lines 11-13), wherein said reflector surface (2) comprises at least one first reflector (21) and at least one second reflector (22) aligned with the antenna radiator (20), and wherein said first reflector (21) has a different dimension in a second direction (along x-axis) parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator (20) than said second reflector (22) to correspond to different wavelengths respectively (Para. 0076, Lines 3-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reflector surface comprising a plurality of reflectors, each reflector having a hollow profile and being configured to reflect at least a part of said generated radiation field towards said main beam direction, wherein said reflector surface comprises at least one first reflector and at least one second reflector aligned with the antenna radiator, and wherein said first reflector has a different dimension in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator than said second reflector to correspond to different wavelengths respectively as taught by Yuhu into the radiation field beam steering arrangement of Park et al. for the benefit of improving the spatial coverage of the electromagnetic wave signal radiation beam in the preset frequency band and improving the communication quality of the electronic device (Para. 0085, Lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 17:
Park et al. are silent on that said hollow profile is one of an elliptical, rectangular, or circular hollow profile, said hollow profile extending in a first direction perpendicular to a main plane of said antenna radiator and in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator.
Yuhu discloses that said hollow profile is one of an elliptical, rectangular, or circular hollow profile, said hollow profile extending in a first direction perpendicular to a main plane of said antenna radiator (20) and in a second direction (along the x-axis) parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator (20; Para. 0054, Lines 3-4; Para. 0067, Lines 10-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hollow profile is one of an elliptical, rectangular, or circular hollow profile, said hollow profile extending in a first direction perpendicular to a main plane of said antenna radiator and in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator as taught by Yuhu into the radiation field beam steering arrangement of Park et al. so that the electromagnetic wave signal of the preset frequency band radiated by the antenna element can be efficiently transmitted through the wave-transmitting area formed by the first wave-transmitting structure and the second wave-transmitting structure (Para. 0072, Lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 18:
Park et al. disclose (in Fig. 6) said reflector surface (675) is arranged within a near-field region of said at least one end-fire antenna element (AR1; Para. 0121, Lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 19:
Park et al. disclose said at least one end-fire antenna element (AR1, AR2) is arranged at a first distance, along said main beam direction (along arrow 1), from said conductive element (621), and said reflector (675) surface is arranged at a second distance, along said main beam direction, from said conductive element (621), said second distance being the same as or larger than said first distance (See Fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 21:
Park et al. disclose said reflector surface (675) at least partially overlaps said antenna radiator (500) in said first direction (along arrow-1).
Regarding claim 22:
Park et al. are silent on that at least two of said plurality of reflectors are arranged to form an array of reflectors extending in said second direction.
Yuhu discloses at least two of said plurality of reflectors (21, 22) are arranged to form an array of reflectors (See Figs.) extending in said second direction (along the x-axis).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement at least two of said plurality of reflectors are arranged to form an array of reflectors extending in said second direction as taught by Yuhu into the radiation field beam steering arrangement of Park et al. for the benefit of improving the beam scanning range radiated by the electronic device (Para. 0090, Lines 15-16).
Regarding claim 23:
The modified Park et al. do not disclose at least one reflector is aligned with the antenna radiator in said first direction and in said second direction.
However, Park et al. discloses (Fig. 10D) at least one reflector (e.g. 654) is aligned with each antenna radiator (AR1 and AR2) in a first direction (along 6543 and 6543, vertical side) and in a second direction (along 6541, horizontal side).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement at least one reflector is aligned with each antenna radiator in said first direction and in said second direction as taught by Park et al. in an embodiment into another embodiment for the benefit of providing shielding within the electronic device (Para. 0121, Lines 13-19).
Regarding claim 28:
Park et al. disclose said reflector surface (675) is placed onto a surface of said substrate (640), and comprises a conductive ink or a conductive mesh applied directly onto said surface or onto a film applied onto said surface (Para. 0185, Lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 30:
Park et al. disclose (in Figs. 6, 11A, 13 and 17A) an apparatus (600) comprising a display element (631), a back cover (640), and a radiation field beam steering arrangement (17b), wherein said radiation field beam steering arrangement (17b) comprises: a substrate (612) comprising a reflector surface (675); a conductive element (621) extending at least partially adjacent a periphery of said substrate (612); and at least one end-fire antenna element (AR1, AR2) superimposed with said substrate (612) and comprising an antenna radiator (500) configured to generate a radiation field having a main beam direction oriented parallel to a main plane of the substrate (612, parallel to 640; Para. 0165, Lines 9-12), said reflector surface (675), wherein the substrate (612) is one of said back cover and a flexible printed circuit (Para. 0129, Lines 11-14), the conductive element (621) is arranged at least partially between said display element (631) and said back cover (640), and the antenna radiator (500) extends adjacent said conductive element (621).
Park et al. are silent on that reflector surface comprising a plurality of reflectors, each reflector having a hollow profile and being configured to reflect at least a part of said generated radiation field towards said main beam direction, wherein said reflector surface comprises at least one first reflector and at least one second reflector aligned with the antenna radiator, and wherein said first reflector has a different dimension in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator than said second reflector to correspond to different wavelengths respectively.
Yuhu discloses (in Figs. 2-10) reflector surface (2) comprising a plurality of reflectors (21, 22), each reflector (21, 22) having a hollow profile (See Figs.) and being configured to reflect at least a part of said generated radiation field towards said main beam direction, wherein said reflector surface (2) comprises at least one first reflector (21) and at least one second reflector (22) aligned with the antenna radiator (20), and wherein said first reflector (21) has a different dimension in a second direction (along the x-axis) parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator (20) than said second reflector (22) to correspond to different wavelengths respectively (Para. 0076, Lines 3-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reflector surface comprising a plurality of reflectors, each reflector having a hollow profile and being configured to reflect at least a part of said generated radiation field towards said main beam direction, wherein said reflector surface comprises at least one first reflector and at least one second reflector aligned with the antenna radiator, and wherein said first reflector has a different dimension in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator than said second reflector to correspond to different wavelengths respectively as taught by Yuhu into the radiation field beam steering arrangement of Park et al. for the benefit of improving the spatial coverage of the electromagnetic wave signal radiation beam in the preset frequency band and improving the communication quality of the electronic device (Para. 0085, Lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 31:
Park et al. are silent on that said hollow profile is one of an elliptical, rectangular, or circular hollow profile, said hollow profile extending in a first direction perpendicular to a main plane of said antenna radiator and in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator.
Yuhu discloses that said hollow profile is one of an elliptical, rectangular, or circular hollow profile, said hollow profile extending in a first direction (along the y-axis) perpendicular to a main plane of said antenna radiator (20) and in a second direction (along the x-axis) parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator (20; Para. 0054, Lines 3-4; Para. 0067, Lines 10-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hollow profile is one of an elliptical, rectangular, or circular hollow profile, said hollow profile extending in a first direction perpendicular to a main plane of said antenna radiator and in a second direction parallel with said main plane of said antenna radiator as taught by Yuhu into the radiation field beam steering arrangement of Park et al. so that the electromagnetic wave signal of the preset frequency band radiated by the antenna element can be efficiently transmitted through the wave-transmitting area formed by the first wave-transmitting structure and the second wave-transmitting structure (Para. 0072, Lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 32:
Park et al. disclose said at least one end-fire antenna element (AR1, AR2) is arranged at a first distance, along said main beam direction (along arrow 1), from said conductive element (621), and said reflector surface (675) is arranged at a second distance, along said main beam direction (along arrow 1), from said conductive element (621), said second distance being the same as or larger than said first distance (See Fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 33:
Park et al. disclose said reflector surface (675) at least partially overlaps said antenna radiator (500) in said first direction (along arrow-1).
Regarding claim 34:
The modified Park et al. do not at least one reflector is aligned with the antenna radiator in said first direction and in said second direction.
However, Park et al. discloses (Figs. 10D) at least one reflector (e.g. 654) is aligned with the antenna radiator (AR1 and AR2) in a first direction (along 6543 and 6543, vertical side) and in a second direction (along 6541, horizontal side).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement at least one reflector is aligned with each antenna radiator in said first direction and in said second direction as taught by Park et al. in an embodiment into another embodiment for the benefit of providing shielding within the electronic device (Para. 0121, Lines 13-19).
Claims 20, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210143536) in view of Yuhu (CN111162371B) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 20210013588).
Regarding claim 20:
Park as modified are silent on that said reflector surface extends adjacent said antenna radiator such that a dielectric gap is formed between a peripheral edge of said reflector surface and said antenna radiator in a first direction, said dielectric gap being formed in said near-field region.
Yoo et al. disclose (in Fig. 19) a reflector surface (1980) extends adjacent an antenna radiator (1950) such that a dielectric gap (defined by the gap between 1950 and 1980) is formed between a peripheral edge of said reflector surface (1980) and said antenna radiator (1950) in a first direction (along x-axis), said dielectric gap (defined by the gap between 1950 and 1980) being formed in said near-field region (See Fig.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said reflector surface extends adjacent said antenna radiator such that a dielectric gap is formed between a peripheral edge of said reflector surface and said antenna radiator in a first direction, said dielectric gap being formed in said near-field region as taught by Yoo et al. into the modified device of Park for the benefit of shaping the beam radiated from the antenna (Para. 0229, Lines 7-10) to achieve an increased peak gain (Para. 0230, Lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 24:
Park as modified are silent on that at least one of said reflectors has a dimension which at least corresponds to λ/2, λ being a wavelength of said radiation field.
Yoo et al. disclose (in Figs. 5A and 5B) at least one of said reflectors (620) has a dimension which at least corresponds to λ, λ being a wavelength of said radiation field (Para. 0169, Lines 11-12).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reflectors formed to have a wavelength for the corresponding frequency as taught by Yoo et al. into the modified device of Park for the benefit of preventing deterioration of electromagnetic waves radiated from the antenna module for a frequency selected or specified by an antenna system that utilizes the antenna (Para. 0169, Lines 1-5).
Park as modified are silent on the dimension is at least λ/2.
However, it is well known in the art λ/2 is a choice resonant wavelength in antenna design because it is a resonant length that allows for efficient radiation by creating constructive interference and a strong signal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dimension is at least λ/2 in the modified Park, in order to strengthen the signal. Furthermore, such design consideration would have been knowledge within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thereby suggesting the obviousness of the design consideration.
Regarding claim 27:
Park as modified are silent on that said reflector surface reflects said radiation in a radiation pattern having a first polarization, said first polarization extending in a plane comprising said main beam direction.
Yoo et al. disclose (in Fig. 9) said reflector surface (620) reflects said radiation in a radiation pattern having a first polarization, said first polarization extending in a plane comprising said main beam direction (Para. 0163, Lines 23-41).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the reflector surface to reflect the radiation in a radiation with polarization extending in a plane comprising said main beam direction as taught by Yoo et al. into the modified device of Park for the benefit of reducing propagation of the electromagnetic waves radiated from the antenna through the rear plate by total reflection (Para. 0163, Lines 39-41) to achieve an increased peak gain (Para. 0230, Lines 4-6).
Claims 25, 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210143536) in view of Yuhu (CN111162371B) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Chen (US 20220216619).
Regarding claims 25 and 35:
Park as modified are silent on that at least one first reflector and said at least one second reflector are separated by a dielectric gap in said first direction, said first reflector being arranged between said antenna radiator and said second reflector.
Chen discloses (in Fig. 3C) at least one first reflector (133) and said at least one second reflector (131) are separated by a dielectric gap (along h2) in said first direction (along z-axis), said first reflector (133) being arranged between said antenna radiator (116 and 117) and said second reflector (131).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement at least one first reflector and at least one second reflector aligned with each antenna radiator and separated by a dielectric gap in said first direction, said first reflector being arranged between said antenna radiator and said second reflector as taught by Chen into the device of Park et al. for the benefit of achieving the effect beam steering a particular and targeted direction (Para. 0057, Lines 19-20).
Regarding claim 26:
Park as modified do not disclose said first reflector has a different shape than said second reflector.
Yuhu discloses said first reflector (21) has a different shape than said second reflector (22; Para. 0076, Lines 3-6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement said first reflector has a different shape than said second reflector as taught by Yuhu into the device of Park et al. for the benefit of improving the spatial coverage of the electromagnetic wave signal radiation beam in the preset frequency band and improving the communication quality of the electronic device (Para. 0085, Lines 22-24).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20210143536) in view of Yuhu (CN111162371B) as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 20200365972).
Regarding claim 29:
Park as modified are silent on that said substrate encloses said reflector surface, said substrate being a multi-layer structure and said reflector surface forming one layer of said multi-layer structure.
Jeon et al. disclose said substrate (defined by 301, 302) encloses said reflector surface (3011), said substrate (defined by 301, 302) being a multi-layer structure and said reflector surface (3011) forming one layer of said multi-layer structure (See Fig. 10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have said substrate encloses said reflector surface, said substrate being a multi-layer structure and said reflector surface forming one layer of said multi-layer structure as taught by Jeon et al. into the modified device of Park for the benefit of achieving antenna module that forms a beam pattern in a specific direction from the inner space of the electronic device (Para. 0006, Lines 9-10).
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 BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights