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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Embodiment I, claims 1-11 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 03/06/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al (US 2023/0112892).
Regarding claim Choi discloses in Figure 2, an antenna module comprising:
a dielectric substrate (120);
a first radiating element (133) disposed in or on the dielectric substrate;
a second radiating element (134) disposed adjacent to the first radiating element (133) in plan view in a normal line direction of the dielectric substrate (120);
a first dielectric (111) disposed to cover the first radiating element (133); and
a second dielectric (112) that is spaced away from the first dielectric (111) and that covers the second radiating element (134),
wherein the second radiating element (134) is configured to emit a radio wave in a frequency band that that is higher in frequency (see Fig. 15 and par. 0100) than another radio wave in another frequency band emitted from the first radiating element (133), and the first dielectric (111) and the second dielectric (112) have higher dielectric constants than the dielectric substrate (see par. 0063).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Choi discloses in Figure 2,
wherein the first dielectric (111) has a shape corresponding to the first radiating element (133), and the second dielectric (112) has a shape corresponding to the second radiating element (134).
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 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2023/0112892).
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1, Choi does not explicitly disclose the dielectric constant of the second dielectric lower than the dielectric constant of the first dielectric.
However, Choi discloses in par. 0060, line 1, the dielectric constant of the second dielectric (112) and the dielectric constant of the first dielectric (111) may have different dielectric constants.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the dielectric constant of the second dielectric layer being lower than the dielectric constant of the first dielectric layer to achieve desired the radiation characteristic for the antenna module based on particular application or environment of use. Therefore, to employ having the dielectric constant as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Choi discloses in Figure 2, wherein in plan view in the normal line direction of the dielectric substrate (120),
PNG
media_image1.png
308
491
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first radiating element (111) and the second radiating element (112) each have substantially a shape,
a first distance between an end portion of the first radiating element (133) and an end portion of the first dielectric (111) in a direction along a side of the first radiating element (133), and
a second distance between an end portion of the second radiating element (134) and an end portion of the second dielectric (112) in a direction along a side of the second radiating element (134).
Choi is silent on the shape being a square shape. However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to select the shape of the radiating elements being square shape for desired radiation characteristic for antenna module, and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of antenna generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Choi does not disclose the first distance being shorter than or equal to 1/2 of a length of the side of the first radiating element, and the second distance being shorter than or equal to 1/2 of a length of the side of the second radiating element. However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set the first distance being ≤ 1/2 of a length of the side of the first radiating element and the second distance being ≤ 1/2 of a length of the side of the second radiating element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5-6, as applied to claim 4, Choi discloses in Figure 2,
wherein a first dimension of the first dielectric (111) in the normal line direction is shorter than the length of the side of the first radiating element (133), and
a second dimension of the second dielectric (112) in the normal line direction is shorter than the length of the side of the second radiating element.
Choi does not disclose the first dimension being ≤1/5 of the length of the side of the first radiating element and the second dimension being ≤1/5 of the length of the side of the second radiating element.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set the first dimension being ≤ 1/5 of a length of the side of the first radiating element and the second dimension being ≤ 1/5 of a length of the side of the second radiating element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses in Figure 2,
wherein a first distance between an end portion of the first radiating element (133) and an end portion of the first dielectric (11) in a polarization direction of the another radio wave emitted from the first radiating element (133), and
a second distance between an end portion of the second radiating element (134) and an end portion of the second dielectric (112) in a polarization direction of the radio wave emitted from the second radiating element (112).
Choi does not disclose the first distance being shorter than or equal to ½ of the length as a dimension of the first radiating element (133) in the polarization direction, and the second distance being shorter than or equal to ½ of a length as a dimension of the second radiating element (134) in the polarization direction.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set the first distance being shorter than or equal to ½ of the length as a dimension of the first radiating element in the polarization direction, and the second distance being shorter than or equal to ½ of a length as a dimension of the second radiating element in the polarization direction, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7, Choi discloses in Figure 2,
wherein a first dimension of the first dielectric (111) in the normal line direction of the length of the first radiating element in the polarization direction of the another radio wave emitted from the first radiating element (133), and
a second dimension of the second dielectric (112) in the normal line direction of the length of the second radiating element in the polarization direction of the radio wave emitted from the second radiating element (134).
Choi does not disclose the first dimension being shorter than or equal to ⅕ and the second dimension being shorter than or equal to ⅕.
However, such difference is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set the first dimension being shorter than or equal to ⅕ and the second dimension being shorter than or equal to ⅕, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Choi discloses in Figure 2,
wherein the another frequency band of the another radio wave emitted from the first radiating element (133), and the frequency band of the radio wave emitted from the second radiating element (134).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 1, Choi discloses in Figure 17, further comprising:
a third radiating element (436) disposed adjacent to the first radiating element (434) and the second radiating element (435) in plan view in the normal line direction of the dielectric substrate (420); and
a third dielectric (413) disposed to be spaced away from the first dielectric (411) and the second dielectric (412) and to cover the third radiating element (436),
wherein a frequency band of a radio wave emitted from the third radiating element is higher than the frequency band of the radio wave emitted from the second radiating element.
Choi is silent on the third dielectric (413) having a higher dielectric constant than the dielectric substrate (420). However, such difference is not patentable merit. In the concept disclosed in par. 0063, dielectric constants of dielectric materials configuring the upper dielectric layer 110 greater than dielectric constant of dielectric material configuring the dielectric substrate 120. One skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to select dielectric constant of the third dielectric greater than dielectric constant of the dielectric substrate for optimal radiation characteristic for the third radiating element. therefore, to employ having the third dielectric as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claim 10, except for the frequency band of the radio wave emitted from the third radiating element being a 60 GHz band. However, specific operating frequency band of a radiating element is not patentable merit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to set or select a size of radiating element to support operations in a frequency band assigned to the radiating element. Therefore, to employ having the frequency band of 60 GHz band as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (US 2023/0112892) in view of Darnell et al (US 2013/0203364).
Regarding claims 16-20, Choi discloses every feature of claimed invention as expressly recited in claims 1-5 except for a baseband integrated circuit that performs baseband processing on signals exchanged with an antenna module. However, such difference is not patentable merit.
It is common practice and well known in the art an additional integrated circuit such as baseband integrated circuit can be used to receive and process data that has been received by antenna. One of such examples is the teaching of Darnell discloses in par. 0075. Therefore, to employ having the baseband circuit as claimed invention would have been obvious to person skill in the art.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEU HIEN T DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8980. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 CRUZ LOPEZ can be reached at 571-270-7893. 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.
/DIEU HIEN T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845