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 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.
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 21-25 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS documents “Yanagi” (US 2006/0267844) in view of “Jo” (US 7079079).
Claim 21: Yanagi discloses a system (Figs. 22-24), comprising:
a device including a radiating system, the radiating system comprising:
a radiation booster or a radiating element 112 (Fig. 22);
a ground plane layer 113 having a first (left) connecting point 731 and a second (right) connecting point 731;
a radiofrequency system electrically connected to the radiation booster or the radiating element and comprising a matching network 115; and
an external port 116 electrically connected to the radiofrequency system;
an apparatus comprising an electrically conductive body 721a-b (Fig. 24), wherein the ground plane layer is spaced from the electrically conductive body by a distance (filled with 111 in Fig. 24B);
a first electrically conductive (left) element 721c comprising one or more components arranged to electrically connect the first connecting point 731 of the device to the electrically conductive body;
and
a second electrically conductive (right) element 721c comprising one or more components arranged to electrically connect the second connecting point 731 of the device to the electrically conductive body (see Fig. 24B).
Yanagi fails to expressly teach the distance less than λ/10, λ being a free-space wavelength at a lowest frequency of operation of the radiating system.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Jo teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yanagi’s system such that the distance less than λ/10, λ being a free-space wavelength at a lowest frequency of operation of the radiating system, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters and desired filtering function (Yanagi, ¶ [0085]).
Claims 22-24: Yanagi is silent regarding wherein the distance between the ground plane layer and the electrically conductive body is less than λ/15; or
wherein the distance between the ground plane layer and the electrically conductive body is less than λ/20; or
wherein the distance between the ground plane layer and the electrically conductive body is less than λ/30.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Jo teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yanagi’s system such that the distance between the ground plane layer and the electrically conductive body is less than λ/15, less than λ/20, or less than λ/30, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters and desired filtering function (Yanagi, ¶ [0085]).
Claim 25: Yanagi teaches he system of claim 21, wherein the ground plane layer and the electrically conductive body have respective surfaces which, in plan view, overlap such that a projection of at least part of the ground plane layer onto the electrically conductive body intersects the electrically conductive body (see Figs. 22-24).
Claim 33: Yanagi teaches wherein at least one of the first and second electrically conductive elements comprises:
a first (left) component 721c on a printed circuit board 111 (Fig. 24B) that provides the ground plane layer 113, the first component being electrically connected in series between the first connecting point and the electrically conductive body (see Fig. 24B); and
a second (right) component 721c provided on or within the electrically conductive body, the second component being electrically connected in series between the second connecting point and the electrically conductive body (see Fig. 24B).
Claim 34: Yanagi fails to expressly teach wherein the radiation booster has a maximum physical dimension that is smaller than one fifteenth of the free-space wavelength at the lowest frequency of operation of the radiating system.
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Jo teaches "[i]t is known that antenna performance is dependent upon the size, shape and material composition of the antenna elements, the interaction between elements and the relationship between certain antenna physical parameters and the wavelength of the signal received or transmitted by the antenna. These physical and electrical characteristics determine several antenna operational parameters, including input impedance, gain, directivity, signal polarization, resonant frequency, bandwidth and radiation pattern." (Col. 1, second paragraph)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yanagi’s system such that the radiation booster has a maximum physical dimension that is smaller than one fifteenth of the free-space wavelength at the lowest frequency of operation of the radiating system, in order to obtain tuned antenna operational parameters and desired filtering function (Yanagi, ¶ [0085]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-32 and 35-38 and 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Parsche (US 9825357)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845