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 .
Remarks
Applicants elect Species I defined by Claims 1-12, 16, 17 without traverse on 12/17/25. Non-elected Species II defined by Claims 13-15 has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means to couple radio frequency (RF) signals between at least two PCB sections using RF transmission lines” in claims 1, 10, 16, 17.
“means to interconnect antennas or antenna elements on one or more PCB sections to one or more radios” in claims 1, 10, 17.
“means to bend at least one PCB section relative to an adjacent PCB section in a range of angle from 0° to at least 90° in claims 1, 10.
“means for maintaining one or bends at one or more bend angles in the PCB sections” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-12, 16, 17 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 16, 17, “means to couple…”, in the specification, is defined as “coaxial cables as means to couple RF signals from the interface matrix on one PCB to antenna feeds on another PCB.” (See paragraph [0117] on page 30. However, it does not teach “means to couple radio frequency (RF) signals between at least two PCB sections using RF transmission lines” as claimed. This term is not clear whether it couples RF signals between two PCB sections using RF transmission lines, or couples RF signals from the interface matrices between two PCBs.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 17, “means to interconnect…”, in the specification, is defined as “an interface matrix 420 provides means to interconnect the different RF chains 432 of the radio 430 to one or more antenna feeds 534H, 534V of the planar antenna segments 414, 514”, (See paragraph [0055] on page 11). However, it does not teach “means to interconnect antennas or antenna elements on one or more PCB sections to one or more radios” as claimed. This term is not clear whether the means (interface matrix 420) is a software module or hardware circuit.
Regarding claims 1, 10, “means to bend…” is not defined in the specification. It is not clear whether it is a particular tool to bend at least one PCB section relative to an adjacent PCB section in a range of angle from 0° to at least 90° as claimed, or a bent portion such as a corner.
Regarding claim 11, “means for maintaining one or bends…” is not defined in the specification. It is not clear whether it is a soldering, substrate, circuit board etc.
Claims 2-9, 11, 12 are vague by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1, 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 10, 11, 16, 17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama et al. (2022/0115785).
Regarding Claim 1, Takayama et al. (2022/0115785) discloses an antenna system comprising:
a planar printed circuit board (PCB) (flexible substrate 160, paragraph [0049], fig. 3) with two or more PCB sections (fig. 3);
a dielectric substrate layer (130 or 131) common (connected) to one of the two PCB sections (figs. 2, 3);
a plurality of antennas or antenna elements (121a, 121b) printed on two or more PCB sections (fig. 2);
means (e.g. transmission lines, figs. 2, 3) to couple radio frequency (RF) signals between at least two PCB sections using RF transmission lines (line 141, 142) (“first and second radio frequency transmission lines, paragraph [0007]; paragraphs [0067], [0100];
means (e.g. connection through 160, figs. 2, 3) to interconnect antennas or antenna elements (121a, 121b) on one or more PCB sections to one or more radios (“radio waves are radiated in the normal direction”, paragraph [0052]); and
means to bend (PCB is bent in a right angle, figs. 2, 3) at least one PCB section relative to an adjacent PCB section in a range of angles from 0 to at least 90 (it is bent 90 degrees, fig. 3).
As discussed above, Takayama essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose a dielectric substrate layer common to two PCB sections.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a dielectric substrate layer (e.g. a 90-degrees bent L shape substrate) common to two PCB sections in Takayama in order to reduce the cost of producing two substrate layers.
Further it has been held that making Integral from two or more parts into one merely routine skill in the art.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding Claim 2, Takayama discloses the antenna system of Claim 1, wherein the planar PCB is a multi-layer PCB with at least two dielectric substrates (130, 131) and at least four metal layers (121a, 121b).
Regarding Claim 3, as discussed above, Takayama discloses a PCB trench (the corner portion) between two or more PCB sections (fig. 2) but does not explicitly disclose the antenna system of Claim 2, wherein the PCB includes linear PCB trenches) between two or more PCB sections.
However, it has been held that adding duplicate part merely involves routine skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided multiple the bent sections of Takayama which includes a plurality of trenches disposed on the mounting substrate 20 in order to enlarge the coverage of the radiation.
Regarding Claim 6, Takayama discloses the antenna system of Claim 1, wherein the dielectric substrate comprises woven fiberglass cloth with an epoxy resin binder (resin, paragraphs [0053], [0061]).
Regarding Claim 7, Takayama discloses the antenna system of Claim 1, wherein the planar PCB includes at least one of a radio, antennas, memory, or processor (antenna module, fig. 2, paragraph [0048]; RFIC, paragraph [0128], figs. 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Takayama discloses the antenna system of Claim 1, wherein one or more PCB sections comprise an interface matrix or section of an interface matrix coupled to the plurality of antennas or antenna elements (Fig 2 show 1x4 matrix).
Regarding Claim 10, Takayama discloses a wireless access point comprising:
at least one radio with a plurality of radio chains (figs. 2, 3; “radio waves are radiated in the normal direction”, paragraph [0052]);
an antenna system comprising:
a planar printed circuit board (PCB) (flexible substrate 160, paragraph [0049], fig. 3) with two or more PCB sections (figs. 2, 3);
a dielectric substrate layer (130 or 131) common (connected) to at least one of the PCB sections (figs. 2, 3);
a plurality of antennas or antenna elements (121a, 121b) printed on two or more PCB sections (Figs. 2, 3);
means to couple (e.g. transmission lines, figs. 2, 3) radio frequency (RF) signals between at least two PCB sections using RF transmission lines (line 141, 142) (“first and second radio frequency transmission lines, paragraph [0007]; paragraphs [0067], [0100];
means to (e.g. connection through 160, figs. 2, 3) interconnect antennas or antenna elements (121a, 121b) on one or more PCB sections (horizontal and vertical surfaces) (figs. 2, 2) to one or more radios (“radio waves are radiated in the normal direction”, paragraph [0052]); and
means to bend (PCB is bent in a right angle, figs. 2, 3) at least one PCB section relative to an adjacent PCB section in a range of angles from 0 to at least 90 (it is bent 90 degrees, fig. 3);
wherein one or more of the PCB sections relative to other PCB sections is bended to radiate RF signals from a first radio chain into an RF signal (“radio waves”) coverage area different to (“two different directions”) or in common to an RF signal coverage area of at least one other of the plurality of radio chains. (“The feeding elements 121a are disposed on the dielectric substrate 131 so that radio waves are radiated in the normal direction of the side surface 22 (that is, the X-axis direction in FIG. 2). In this manner, by connecting the two dielectric substrates 130 and 131 by using the curved flexible substrate 160, radio waves can be radiated in two different directions”, paragraph [0052]).
As discussed above, Takayama essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose a dielectric substrate layer common to two PCB sections.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a dielectric substrate layer (e.g. a 90-degrees bent L shape substrate) common to two PCB sections in Takayama in order to reduce the cost of producing two substrate layers.
Further it has been held that making Integral from two or more parts into one merely routine skill in the art.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding Claim 11, Takayama discloses the wireless access point of Claim 10, further comprising means for maintaining one or bends at one or more bend angles in the PCB sections (flexible substrate…in a bent state, paragraph [0171]) within the wireless access point.
Regarding Claim 16, Takayama discloses a printed circuit board (PCB) comprising:
two or more PCB sections (flexible substrate 160) separated by a PCB trench (corner portion) (Figs. 2 and 3), wherein at least one substrate layer (130 or 131) is common (connected) to the first PCB section or second PCB section;
a plurality of antennas or antenna elements (121a, 121b) assembled or fabricated on the two or more PCB sections;
means to couple (e.g. transmission lines, figs. 2, 3) radio frequency (RF) signals between the at least two PCB sections using RF transmission lines (line 141, 142) (“first and second radio frequency transmission lines, paragraph [0007]; paragraphs [0067], [0100]; and
at least one PCB section oriented relative to an adjacent PCB section by a bend (it is bended 90 degrees, fig. 3) along a PCB trench (corner portion) while maintaining RF coupling between adjacent PCB sections (“radio waves are radiated in the normal direction”, paragraph [0052]).
As discussed above, Takayama essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose at least one other substrate layer is not common to first PCB section and second PCB section.
However, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have provided another substrate layer being not common to the first and second PCB sections in order to mount another functionally different device.
As discussed above, Takayama essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose a dielectric substrate layer common to two PCB sections.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a dielectric substrate layer (e.g. a 90-degrees bent L shape substrate) common to two PCB sections in Takayama in order to reduce the cost of producing two substrate layers.
Further it has been held that making Integral from two or more parts into one merely routine skill in the art.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Regarding Claim 17, Takayama discloses an antenna system comprising:
a printed circuit board (figs. 2, 3) comprising:
two or more PCB sections separated by a PCB trench (corner portion), wherein at least one substrate layer is common to the first PCB section or second PCB section (figs. 2, 3);
a plurality of antennas or antenna elements (121a, 121b) assembled or fabricated on the two or more PCB sections (figs. 2, 3);
means to couple (e.g. transmission lines, figs. 2, 3) radio frequency (RF) signals between the at least two PCB sections using RF transmission lines (line 141, 142) (“first and second radio frequency transmission lines, paragraph [0007]; paragraphs [0067], [0100]; and
at least one PCB section oriented relative to an adjacent PCB section by a bend (it is bent by 90 degrees, fig. 3) along a PCB trench (corner portion) while maintaining RF coupling between adjacent PCB sections (figs. 2, 3); and
means to interconnect (e.g. connection through 160, figs. 2, 3) at least two PCB sections to one or more radios or radio chains (“radio waves are radiated in the normal direction”, paragraph [0052]).
As discussed above, Takayama essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose at least one other substrate layer is not common to first PCB section and second PCB section.
However, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to have provided another substrate layer being not common to the first and second PCB sections in order to mount another functionally different device.
As discussed above, Takayama essentially discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose a dielectric substrate layer common to two PCB sections.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a dielectric substrate layer (e.g. a 90-degrees bent L shape substrate) common to two PCB sections in Takayama in order to reduce the cost of producing two substrate layers.
Further it has been held that making Integral from two or more parts into one merely routine skill in the art.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”); but see Schenckv.Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form “a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece.” Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 4, 5, 9, 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Wilson Lee whose telephone number is (571) 272-1824. Proposed amendment and interview agenda can be submitted to Examiner’s direct fax at (571) 273-1824.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. Papers related to the application may be submitted by facsimile transmission. Any transmission not to be considered an official response must be clearly marked "DRAFT". The official fax number is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/WILSON LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights