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 Interpretation
Examiner’s note - Regarding the recitation that an element is ‘configured to’ perform a function, it is the position of the office that such limitations are not positive structural limitations, and thus, only require the ability to so perform. In this case the prior art applied herein is construed as at least possessing such ability.
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, 5-6 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TDK (JP 2004015160) – of record disclosed by Applicant’s IDS, hereinafter TDK, in view of Rogers (US 2021/0376488), hereinafter Rogers.
Regarding claim 1 TDK discloses an electronic device, comprising: a shielding cover (page 2 the shield at the cavity), wherein the shielding cover is provided with a first metal layer (page 2 Fig. 2, at top layer of cavity); a second metal layer (page 2 Fig. 2, at bottom layer of cavity), wherein the second metal layer is spaced apart from the first metal layer, a slot (page 2 Fig. 2, at 20) is provided on the second metal layer, and the second metal layer is disposed outside the shielding cover (Fig. 2 shows the second metal layer is disposed outside the shielding cover); a metal member (Fig. 2, at 30), wherein the metal member is disposed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer (Fig. 2, at 30), the metal member forms a resonant cavity (page 2 “cavity”) in a manner of enclosing, the metal member is electrically connected to the first metal layer and the second metal layer separately (all shown in Fig. 2), and the first metal layer and the second metal layer form a first resonant cavity antenna (Fig. 2, at C, 20, and 21); and a feeding structure (Fig. 2, at 50), wherein the feeding structure is configured to feed the resonant cavity.
TDK does not teach wherein the first metal layer, the second metal layer and the metal member are not formed integrally, and the metal member is a metal elastic piece or a screw post.
Rogers teaches wherein the first metal layer, the second metal layer and the metal member are not formed integrally, and the metal member is a metal elastic piece or a screw post (e.g., paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device disclosed by TDK in accordance with the teaching of Rogers regarding the use of screws instead of having an integrally formed structure in order to fasten the layers together (Rogers, paragraph 0029) which provides for simplified repairs of the electronic device.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 TDK further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the metal member extends in a circumferential direction of the second metal layer; or there are a plurality of metal members, and the plurality of metal members are spaced apart from each other in a circumferential direction of the second metal layer (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3 TDK further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the metal member comprises: a first metal member (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the first metal member is electrically connected to the first metal layer and the second metal layer separately, and the first metal member is disposed in a circumferential direction of the second metal layer (shown in Fig. 2), and forms a first resonant cavity in a manner of enclosing; and a second metal member (shown in Fig. 2), wherein the second metal member is electrically connected to the first metal layer and the second metal layer separately, the second metal member is disposed in the circumferential direction of the second metal layer and forms a second resonant cavity in a manner of enclosing, and the second resonant cavity is located in the first resonant cavity (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5 TDK further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a dielectric layer (e.g., Fig. 2, at 10) is filled between the first metal layer and the second metal layer.
Regarding claim 6 TDK discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, except wherein the slot is strip-shaped, and a ratio of a length of the slot to a width of the slot is greater than or equal to 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to wherein the slot is strip-shaped, and a ratio of a length of the slot to a width of the slot is greater than or equal to 10, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7 TDK further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a third metal layer (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70), wherein the third metal layer is disposed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer and is located in the resonant cavity (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70), the third metal layer is spaced apart from the first metal layer and the second metal layer separately (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70), and an edge of the third metal layer is electrically connected to the metal member (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70).
Regarding claim 8 TDK further discloses the electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the metal member extends in a circumferential direction of the second metal layer (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70), the third metal layer is rectangular-shaped (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70), and two adjacent edges of the third metal layer are both electrically connected to the metal member (e.g., Fig. 2, at 70).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TDK in view of Rogers and Romano et al., (US 2019/0097306), hereinafter Romano.
Regarding claim 12 TDK does not explicitly disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a tuning element, wherein the feeding structure feeds the resonant cavity by using the tuning element.
Romano discloses a tuning element (e.g., Fig. 3, at 101; paragraph 0041), wherein the feeding structure feeds the resonant cavity by using the tuning element (paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by TDK in accordance with the teaching of Romano regarding tuning elements used with an antenna in order to cover desired communications bands (Romano, paragraph 0041).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TDK in view of Rogers and Channabasappa (US 2007/0080864), hereinafter Channabasappa.
Regarding claim 13 TDK does not disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a main board, wherein the shielding cover is disposed on the main board.
Channabasappa discloses a main board (e.g., paragraph 0007), wherein the shielding cover is disposed on the main board (e.g., paragraph 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by TDK in accordance with the teaching of Channabasappa regarding shield elements used with an antenna in order isolate the antenna (Channabasappa, paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 14 TDK does not disclose the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising: a first antenna, wherein the first antenna is disposed on the second metal layer.
Channabasappa discloses a first antenna (e.g., Fig. 2A, at 202; paragraph 0034), wherein the first antenna is disposed on the second metal layer (e.g., paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the antenna disclosed by TDK in accordance with the teaching of Channabasappa regarding shield elements used with an antenna in order isolate the antenna (Channabasappa, paragraph 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 4, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein there are a plurality of second metal members, and the second metal members are distributed on two sides of the slot.
TDK, Rogers, and Channabasappa (US 2007/0080864) are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a shielding cover, a first metal layer, a second metal layer, a metal member, a first resonant cavity, a screw, and a feeding structure.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 9, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein there are a plurality of shielding covers, there are a plurality of second metal layers, and a first metal layer of each shielding cover and one corresponding second metal layer form one of the first resonant cavity antennas.
TDK, Rogers, and Channabasappa are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a shielding cover, a first metal layer, a second metal layer, a metal member, a first resonant cavity, a screw, and a feeding structure.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 10, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein there are a plurality of shielding covers, there is one second metal layer, and first metal layers on the plurality of shielding covers are all disposed corresponding to the second metal layer to form the first resonant cavity antennas respectively.
TDK, Rogers, and Channabasappa are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a shielding cover, a first metal layer, a second metal layer, a metal member, a first resonant cavity, a screw, and a feeding structure.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Regarding dependent claim 11, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of wherein a plurality of the resonant cavities are formed between the first metal layer and the second metal layer, and the slots are respectively disposed at positions, corresponding to the resonant cavities, on the second metal layers.
TDK, Rogers, and Channabasappa are both cited as teaching some elements of the claimed invention including a shielding cover, a first metal layer, a second metal layer, a metal member, a first resonant cavity, a screw, and a feeding structure.
However, the prior art, when taken alone, or, in combination, cannot be construed as reasonably teaching or suggesting all of the elements of the claimed invention as arranged, disposed, or provided in the manner as claimed by the Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 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
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference aspotentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of thepassage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 DAVID E LOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-7422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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.
DAVID E. LOTTER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2845
/DAVID E LOTTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845