DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 11-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith JR. et al (US 20210119339) in view of Smith et al (US 7142161).
Regarding claim 11, Smith JR teaches an expansion card, comprising: a nonconductive frame (fig 3, item 201); an I/O bracket affixed to the nonconductive frame (fig 3); and a connector communicably coupled to the antenna and accessible from an exterior surface of the I/O bracket (fig 3, items 108 and 204).
Regarding claim 11, Smith JR does not teach a planar antenna printed in conductive material on a dielectric substrate, wherein the planar antenna is supported by the nonconductive frame. Smith teaches a planar antenna printed in conductive material on a dielectric substrate, wherein the planar antenna is supported by the nonconductive frame (fig 5a, item 210 and 514). It would have been obvious to modify Smith Jr. to include a planar antenna printed in conductive material on a dielectric substrate, wherein the planar antenna is supported by the nonconductive frame because it is applying a known antenna device of Smith to a known expansion card of Smith jr. to yield a predictable expansion card.
Regarding claim 12, Smith teaches the nonconductive frame further comprises a dummy edge finger configured for mechanically engaging an expansion connector of a computer system (col 2, lines 50-67), and wherein the nonconductive frame supports the planar antenna in a location that is offset laterally from the dummy edge finger towards a center of an electromechanical volume allotted to the expansion card (fig 5a). It would have been obvious to modify Smith Jr. to include the nonconductive frame further comprises a dummy edge finger configured for mechanically engaging an expansion connector of a computer system and wherein the nonconductive frame supports the planar antenna in a location that is offset laterally from the dummy edge finger towards a center of an electromechanical volume allotted to the expansion card because it is applying a known antenna device of Smith to a known expansion card of Smith jr. to yield a predictable expansion card.
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches the expansion card has a form factor confirming to dimensional specifications of a low-profile PCle expansion card (fig 5a) It would have been obvious to modify Smith Jr. to include the expansion card has a form factor confirming to dimensional specifications of a low-profile PCle expansion card because it is applying a known antenna device of Smith to a known expansion card of Smith jr. to yield a predictable expansion card.
Regarding claim 15, Smith JR. teaches the connector is a radiofrequency connector, the expansion card further comprising: a cap for the radiofrequency connector; and a tether attached at a first end to the cap, and at a second end to the exterior surface of the I/O bracket (fig 3).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith JR. in view of Smith as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sun et al (US 20200411985).
Regarding claim 14, Sun teaches wherein the dielectric substrate of the planar antenna and nonconductive frame further comprise holes in a plurality of corners (fig 4b and para 21), wherein pairs of the holes in corresponding corners of the dielectric substrate and the nonconductive frame are aligned (para 21); and wherein the expansion card further comprises push-pin rivets installed though the aligned pairs of holes to affix the planar antenna to the nonconductive frame (para 21). It would have been obvious to modify Smith JR. in view of Smith to include the dielectric substrate of the planar antenna and nonconductive frame further comprise holes in a plurality of corners, wherein pairs of the holes in corresponding corners of the dielectric substrate and the nonconductive frame are aligned, and wherein the expansion card further comprises push-pin rivets installed though the aligned pairs of holes to affix the planar antenna to the nonconductive frame because it is mere a substitution for the well-known antenna of Keller III with the antenna of Sun to yield a predictable antenna.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller III (US 20180316082) in view of Smith JR. et al (US 20210119339) and Smith et al (US 7142161).
Regarding claim 16, Keller III teaches a computer system, comprising: a chassis; computing components within the chassis that generate EMI when operating (abs and fig 10 and para 457); an expansion slot within the chassis that includes an expansion connector (fig 10); and an expansion card installed in the expansion slot, the expansion card (fig 10)
Regarding claim 16, Keller III does not teach a nonconductive frame having a dummy edge finger configured to mechanically engage the expansion connector of the expansion slot. Smith teaches a nonconductive frame having a dummy edge finger configured to mechanically engage the expansion connector of the expansion slot (fig 5a). It would have been obvious to modify Keller III to include a nonconductive frame having a dummy edge finger configured to mechanically engage the expansion connector of the expansion slot because it is applying a known antenna device of Smith jr. to a known expansion card of Keller III to yield a predictable expansion card.
Regarding claim 16, Keller III does not teach a broadband antenna printed in conductive material on a dielectric substrate, wherein the broadband antenna is held by the nonconductive frame at a lateral center of the expansion slot, and I/O bracket affixed to the nonconductive frame and to the chassis, and a radiofrequency connector electrically connected to the broadband antenna and accessible from outside the chassis on an exterior surface of the I/O bracket. Smith JR teaches a broadband antenna printed in conductive material on a dielectric substrate, wherein the broadband antenna is held by the nonconductive frame at a lateral center of the expansion slot (fig 3 and 5) an I/O bracket affixed to the nonconductive frame and to the chassis (fig 3); and a radiofrequency connector electrically connected to the broadband antenna and accessible from outside the chassis on an exterior surface of the I/O bracket (fig 3). It would have been obvious to modify Keller III to include a broadband antenna printed in conductive material on a dielectric substrate, wherein the broadband antenna is held by the nonconductive frame at a lateral center of the expansion slot, and I/O bracket affixed to the nonconductive frame and to the chassis, and a radiofrequency connector electrically connected to the broadband antenna and accessible from outside the chassis on an exterior surface of the I/O bracket because it is applying a known antenna device of Smith to a known expansion card of Keller III jr. to yield a predictable expansion card.
Regarding claim 18, Keller III teaches the expansion slot in which the expansion card is installed is closest to one of (i) a lateral centermost position within the chassis (fig 10, item 1010) or (ii) a signal hotspot within the chassis. not in electronic communication with the computer system.
Regarding claim 19, Keller III teaches the expansion card is not in electronic communication with the computer system (abs)
Regarding claim 20, Keller III teaches comprising an EMI scanning system external to the computer system, the EMI scanning system comprising: a radio receiver electrically connected to the broadband antenna (abs, “The device includes an antenna card with a detachably attachable antenna module that can be positioned at a distance from the electrically devices under test”) a processor and memory communicably coupled to the radio receiver; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including instructions that, when executed by the processor accessing the memory, cause the EMI scanning system to detect that one of the computing components behaves anomalously based on a difference between readings of radiofrequency EMI sensed within the computer system by the broadband antenna and machine learning estimates of radiofrequency EMI for a reference computer system (abs); and a display configured to show an indication when the one of the computing components has been detected to behave anonymously (para 492).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller III in view of Smith JR. and Smith as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Schmalenberg et al (US 20180026356).
Regarding claim 17, Schmalenberg teaches the broadband antenna has a response that is symmetrical about a lengthwise axis of the expansion slot and biased toward an interior of the chassis (fig 2a). It would have been obvious to modify Keller III in view of Smith JR. and Smith to include the broadband antenna has a response that is symmetrical about a lengthwise axis of the expansion slot and biased toward an interior of the chassis because it is mere a substitution for the well-known antenna of Keller III with the antenna of Schmalenberg to yield a predictable antenna.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Smith JR., Smith and Keller III does not teach nor make obvious (claim 1) a plurality of ground regions of conductive trace disposed on the substrate, wherein the ground regions flank the antenna region on opposite sides, and wherein gaps between the ground regions and the antenna region progressively widen.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights