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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 23rd, 2024 and March 5th 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the two outer antenna feeds are offset from one another by 180 degrees (180º)” as recited in claim 4 and “wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by ninety degrees (90º).” as recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “114” has been used to designate both Inner feed clearance areas and middle feed clearance areas. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 62 – Middle antenna perimeter 129 is called 119 which is the number for the inner antenna perimeter.
Number 114 is used for both the inner feed clearance areas and middle feed clearance areas.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, 19, and 20- line 7, 2, and 2 - “then” should be corrected to “than”.
Claim 17 fails to recite the middle antenna structure comprising an middle antenna radiating element and it might be beneficial to include it to define the middle antenna structure as comprising a middle antenna rather than just an antenna structure that is in the middle which is how it can be viewed now.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 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.
The terms “Similar in shape/thickness/orientation” in claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 17, and 18 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “Similar in shape/thickness/orientation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what exactly is meant by similar in this context and what would count as similar and when something would not be considered similar anymore (5% difference, 10% difference, more?). Based on the specifications and drawings it seems that the shape, thicknesses, and orientation presented are roughly the same. For the purposes of examination, the examiner, as best understood, will interpret the “Similar in shape/thickness/orientation” to mean the “same in shape/thickness/orientation” to bring the claims more in line with what is taught in the drawings and specifications.
Claims 2-16 and 18-20 inherit the indefiniteness of claims 1 and 17.
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, 5-6, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 11764474 B2) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 217134668 U).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, Fan et al. discloses a building-block antenna structure, the building-block antenna (Building block antenna structure as seen in figure 6 of Fan et al.) structure comprising:
an outer antenna structure comprising one or more outer antenna feeds and an outer antenna radiator, the outer antenna structure further comprising an inner antenna accommodating perimeter (Outer antenna structure comprises an outer radiator 5 and outer feed structures 6 and 7 as well as an interior perimeter area defined by a gap in which an interior antenna structure lies; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.), and
an inner antenna structure comprising a perimeter that is similar in shape to the inner antenna accommodating perimeter, the inner antenna structure comprising the one or more inner antenna feeds and an inner antenna radiator (Interior antenna structure comprises an inner radiating element 2 and inner antenna feeds 3 and 4 wherein said structure is placed inside the inner antenna accommodating perimeter which comprises a square shape, the same as the inner antenna structure; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.);
with the outer antenna structure operating at a different frequency band then the inner antenna structure (Inner antenna 2 can cooperate with antenna feed 3 to generate a first operating frequency and second antenna structure 5 can operate with feed 6 to operate at a second frequency band; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.).
Fan et al. fails to explicitly disclose the inner antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more feed clearance areas, the one or more feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more inner antenna feeds and wherein the outer antenna structure comprises a similar thickness as the inner antenna structure.
However, Zheng et al. does disclose the inner antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more feed clearance areas, the one or more feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more inner antenna feeds and wherein the outer antenna structure comprises a similar thickness as the inner antenna structure (Outer antenna structure in the form of second radiation structure 3 has an inner perimeter space for the inner antenna structure in the form of the first radiation structure 2 wherein said space comprises a clearance zone for antenna feed 4 which serves to feed the interior antenna 2 and said antenna structures can comprise a the same thickness; Pg. 5-7 and figure 3 of Zheng et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. to have the inner antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more feed clearance areas, the one or more feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more inner antenna feeds and wherein the outer antenna structure comprises a similar thickness as the inner antenna structure as taught by Zheng et al. to feed desired signals to the inner and outer antenna structures wherein the location of the feed helps with matching and affects radiation patterns/performance (Pg. 8-9 of Zheng et al.) and the thickness of the radiating structures would impact there operating frequencies.
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
595
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
490
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the one or more outer antenna feeds comprises two outer antenna feeds (The antenna assembly comprises two outer feeds 6 and 7 and two inner feeds 3 and 4; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al).
Regarding Claim 3, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the two outer antenna feeds are offset from one another by 90 degrees (90º) (Feeds 6 and 7 can be offset from each by 90 degrees as seen in figure 7; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al).
Regarding Claim 5, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the one or more inner antenna feeds comprises two inner antenna feeds (The antenna assembly comprises two outer feeds 6 and 7 and two inner feeds 3 and 4; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al).
Regarding Claim 6 as best understood, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the two inner antenna feeds are positioned in a similar orientation with the two outer antenna feeds (Inner feeds 3 and 4 are orientated such that they are 90 degrees apart and outer feeds 6 and 7 are also orientated 90 degrees apart and as such inner feeds and outer feeds have the same orientation; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al).
Regarding Claim 9, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the one or more outer antenna feeds comprises a single outer antenna feed; and wherein the one or more inner antenna feeds comprises a single inner antenna feed (Feeding structures 4 and 7 can be omitted such that the invention only comprises a single inner feed 3 and single outer feed 6; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al).
Regarding Claim 12, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the single outer antenna feed is offset from the single inner antenna feed by one-hundred eighty degrees (180) (Single outer feed 6 is offset by 180 degrees from the single inner feed 3 as seen in figure 7; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.).
Regarding Claim 13, Fan et al. further discloses wherein a plurality of solder mask areas are located on a bottom surface of the outer antenna structure and a bottom surface of the inner antenna structure (All inner and outer feed lines like 6 and 7 as well as the grounding portion 8 comprise solder portions that connect to conductive pads on the printed circuit board P wherein said feed soldering portions would be on the bottom side of the inner and outer antenna structures forming solder mask areas; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.).
Claim(s) 4, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 11764474 B2) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 217134668 U) and Cheng’ 963 et al. (US 7592963 B2).
Regarding Claim 4, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the two outer antenna feeds are offset from one another by 180 degrees (180º).
However, Cheng’ 963 et al. does disclose wherein the two outer antenna feeds are offset from one another by 180 degrees (180º) (Multiple slot resonating antenna comprises inner and outer radiating slots with inner and outer feed elements like 918 and 916 wherein there can be multiple outer feeds like 916 and a second outer feed 916 can be disposed 180 degrees across from the first outer feed as seen in figure 12 and 14; Paragraph 26-37 and figure 11-14 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have the two outer antenna feeds be offset from one another by 180 degrees (180º) as taught by Cheng’ 963 et al. since the location of the probes that are in use would affect the antenna radiation patterns and provide multiple polarizations for polarization diversity (Paragraph 30-41 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
PNG
media_image4.png
608
411
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
650
349
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7 as best understood, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by ninety degrees (90º).
However, Cheng’ 963 et al. does disclose wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by ninety degrees (90º) (Multiple slot resonating antenna comprises inner and outer radiating slots with inner and outer feed elements like 918 and 916 wherein a first inner feed and first outer feed may be on the same side and a second inner and second outer feed may be offset form each other by 90 degrees seen in figure 14 wherein there are 8 inner/outer feeds on all 4 cardinal sides which can be freely selected form such that two of them meet the 90 degree offset; Paragraph 26-37 and figure 11-14 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by ninety degrees (90º) as taught by Cheng’ 963 et al. since the location of the probes that are in use would affect the antenna radiation patterns and provide multiple polarizations for polarization diversity (Paragraph 30-41 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Regarding Claim 8 as best understood, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by one-hundred eighty degrees (180).
However, Cheng’ 963 et al. does disclose wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by one-hundred eighty degrees (180) (Multiple slot resonating antenna comprises inner and outer radiating slots with inner and outer feed elements like 918 and 916 wherein a first inner feed and first outer feed may be on the same side and a second inner and second outer feed may be offset form each other by 90 degrees seen in figure 14 wherein there are 8 inner/outer feeds on all 4 cardinal sides which can be freely selected form such that two of them meet the 90 degree offset; Paragraph 26-37 and figure 11-14 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have wherein a first inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is located in a similar orientation with a first outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds; and wherein a second inner antenna feed of the two inner antenna feeds is offset with a second outer antenna feed of the two outer antenna feeds by one-hundred eighty degrees (180) as taught by Cheng’ 963 et al. since the location of the probes that are in use would affect the antenna radiation patterns and provide multiple polarizations for polarization diversity (Paragraph 30-41 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Regarding Claim 10, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the single outer antenna feed is positioned on a same side of the building-block antenna structure as the single inner antenna feed.
However, Cheng’ 963 et al. does disclose wherein the single outer antenna feed is positioned on a same side of the building-block antenna structure as the single inner antenna feed (An inner antenna feed like 916 may be arranged on the same side as the outer feed 918 as seen in figure 11; Paragraph 26-37 and figure 11-14 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have wherein the single outer antenna feed is positioned on a same side of the building-block antenna structure as the single inner antenna feed as taught by Cheng’ 963 et al. since the location of the probes that are in use would affect the antenna radiation patterns and provide multiple polarizations for polarization diversity (Paragraph 30-41 of Cheng’ 963 et al.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 11764474 B2) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 217134668 U) and Cheng’ 468 et al. (US 20230361468 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the single outer antenna feed is positioned on a same side of the building-block antenna structure as the single inner antenna feed.
However, Cheng’ 468 et al. does disclose wherein the single outer antenna feed is positioned on a same side of the building-block antenna structure as the single inner antenna feed (First feeding pin 13 for the outer antenna 11 is offset from the inner feed pin 23 for the inner antenna 2 by 90 degrees; Paragraph 33-38 and figure 3 of Cheng’ 468 et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have wherein the single outer antenna feed is positioned on a same side of the building-block antenna structure as the single inner antenna feed as taught by Cheng ‘468 et al. since the position of the feeding structures would affect the antenna radiation patterns and polarization.
PNG
media_image6.png
551
524
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 11764474 B2) in view of Zheng et al. (CN 217134668 U) and McGough et al. (US 10498047 B1).
Regarding Claim 14, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the inner antenna structure comprises one or more first alignment features, the one or more first alignment features being configured to engage with one or more second alignment features located on the outer antenna structure.
However, McGough et al. does disclose wherein the inner antenna structure comprises one or more first alignment features, the one or more first alignment features being configured to engage with one or more second alignment features located on the outer antenna structure (Inner antenna structure formed by monopole antenna 22 and frame 24 wherein said frame comprises openings serving as a first alignment feature and an outer antenna structure 26 comprises tabs 44 which serve as a second alignment feature wherein the first and second alignment features engage with each other by the tabs 44 going through the holes on frame 24 such that the top surface 36 of outer antenna structure 26 is coplanar with the top surface 30 of the inner antenna 22 so they can be capacitively coupled and held in place wherein said structure comprises solder that also serves as an alignment feature wherein both the inner and outer antennas can comprise solder that connects to each other; Paragraph 13-23 and figure 1-2 of McGough et al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have the inner antenna structure comprises one or more first alignment features, the one or more first alignment features being configured to engage with one or more second alignment features located on the outer antenna structure as taught by McGough et al. so that the antenna structure can be assembled and held together and antenna elements can be aligned (Paragraph 17-18 of McGough et al.).
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image7.png
596
416
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 15, Fan et al. and Zheng et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the inner antenna structure comprises one or more first alignment features, the one or more first alignment features being configured to engage with one or more second alignment features located on the outer antenna structure.
However, McGough et al. does disclose wherein the inner antenna structure comprises one or more first alignment features, the one or more first alignment features being configured to engage with one or more second alignment features located on the outer antenna structure (Inner antenna structure formed by monopole antenna 22 and frame 24 wherein said frame comprises openings serving as a first alignment feature and an outer antenna structure 26 comprises tabs 44 which serve as a second alignment feature wherein the first and second alignment features engage with each other by the tabs 44 going through the holes on frame 24 such that the top surface 36 of outer antenna structure 26 is coplanar with the top surface 30 of the inner antenna 22 so they can be capacitively coupled and held in place wherein said structure comprises solder that also serves as an alignment feature wherein both the inner and outer antennas can comprise solder that connects to each other; Paragraph 13-23 and figure 1-2 of McGough et al).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. and Zheng et al. to have the inner antenna structure comprises one or more first alignment features, the one or more first alignment features being configured to engage with one or more second alignment features located on the outer antenna structure as taught by McGough et al. so that the antenna structure can be assembled and held together and antenna elements can be aligned (Paragraph 17-18 of McGough et al.).
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan et al. (US 11764474 B2) in view of Adachi et al. (US 6876328 B2).
Regarding Claim 17 as best understood, Fan et al. discloses a building-block antenna structure (Building block antenna structure as seen in figure 6 of Fan et al.), the building-block antenna structure comprising: an outer antenna structure comprising one or more outer antenna feeds and an outer antenna radiator, the outer antenna structure (Outer antenna structure comprises an outer radiator 5 and outer feed structures 6 and 7 as well as an interior perimeter area defined by a gap in which an interior antenna structure lies; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.); and an inner antenna structure comprising a perimeter that is similar in shape to the inner antenna accommodating perimeter, the inner antenna structure comprising the one or more inner antenna feeds and an inner antenna radiator (Interior antenna structure comprises an inner radiating element 2 and inner antenna feeds 3 and 4 wherein said structure is placed inside the inner antenna accommodating perimeter which comprises a square shape, the same as the inner antenna structure; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.).
Fan et al. fails to disclose the outer antenna structure further comprising a middle antenna accommodating perimeter, the middle antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more middle feed clearance areas, the one or more middle feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more middle antenna feeds; a middle antenna structure comprising an external perimeter that is similar in shape to the middle antenna accommodating perimeter, the middle antenna structure further comprising an inner antenna accommodating perimeter, the inner antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more inner feed clearance areas, the one or more inner feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more inner antenna feeds.
However, Adachi et al. does the outer antenna structure further comprising a middle antenna accommodating perimeter, the middle antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more middle feed clearance areas, the one or more middle feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more middle antenna feeds (Antenna 200 comprises an outer antenna 204 and a middle antenna accommodating perimeter defined by the space E, and the dielectric under portion under it, wherein it accommodates a middle antenna element 204 and also has an feed area clearance to place a feed 206 wherein said feed clearance zone can be a grove formed in the dielectric region making up the middle perimeter; Paragraph 30-60 and figure 10-14 of Adachi et al.); a middle antenna structure comprising an external perimeter that is similar in shape to the middle antenna accommodating perimeter, the middle antenna structure further comprising an inner antenna accommodating perimeter, the inner antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more inner feed clearance areas, the one or more inner feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more inner antenna feeds (Antenna 200 comprises an middle antenna 203, with the same shape as the middle perimeter, and an inner antenna accommodating perimeter defined by the space C, and the dielectric under portion under it, wherein it accommodates an inner antenna element 202 and also has an feed area clearance to place a feed 205 wherein said feed clearance zone can be a grove formed in the dielectric region making up the inner perimeter; Paragraph 30-60 and figure 10-14 of Adachi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. to have the outer antenna structure further comprise a middle antenna accommodating perimeter, the middle antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more middle feed clearance areas, the one or more middle feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more middle antenna feeds; a middle antenna structure comprising an external perimeter that is similar in shape to the middle antenna accommodating perimeter, the middle antenna structure further comprising an inner antenna accommodating perimeter, the inner antenna accommodating perimeter further comprising one or more inner feed clearance areas, the one or more inner feed clearance areas configured to accommodate one or more inner antenna feeds as taught by Adachi et al. to provide an additional radiating element with an additional feed so that the antenna can be used to operate in three frequency bands (Paragraph 30-36 and figure 10a-b of Adachi et al.).
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. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
PNG
media_image8.png
621
472
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18 as best understood, Fan et al. fails to disclose wherein the outer antenna structure comprises a similar thickness as the middle antenna structure and the inner antenna structure.
However, Adachi et al. does disclose wherein the outer antenna structure comprises a similar thickness as the middle antenna structure and the inner antenna structure (All the patch antenna structures are formed the same using thick film printing and comprise similar thickness; Paragraph 30-36 and figure 10a-b of Adachi et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. to have the outer antenna structure comprises a similar thickness as the middle antenna structure and the inner antenna structure since the thickness of the antenna structures would affect their radiating characteristics.
Regarding Claim 19, Fan et al. further discloses wherein the outer antenna structure operates at a different frequency band then the inner antenna structure (Inner antenna 2 can cooperate with antenna feed 3 to generate a first operating frequency and second antenna structure 5 can operate with feed 6 to operate at a second frequency band; Paragraph 19-29 and figure 6-9 of Fan et al.).
Regarding Claim 20, Fan et al. fails to disclose wherein the middle antenna structure operates at a different frequency band then both the inner antenna structure and the outer antenna structure.
However, Adachi et al. does disclose wherein the middle antenna structure operates at a different frequency band then both the inner antenna structure and the outer antenna structure (The middle radiating structure 203 operates at a middle frequency which is different from the lower and higher frequency bands of the inner and outer antennas 202 and 204; Paragraph 30-40 and figure 10a-b of Fan et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art modify the antenna as taught by Fan et al. to have the middle antenna structure operate at a different frequency band then both the inner antenna structure and the outer antenna structure as taught by Adachi et al. to provide an additional radiating element with an additional feed so that the antenna can be used to operate in three frequency bands (Paragraph 30-36 and figure 10a-b of Adachi et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Regarding claim 16, patentability exists, at least in part, with the claimed features of a “the engagement of the one or more first alignment features with the one or more second alignment features enables a bottom surface of the inner antenna structure to be coplanar with a bottom surface of the outer antenna structure” as recited in claim 16.
Fan et al., Zheng et al., and McGough et al. are cited as teaching some of the elements of the claimed invention including an building block antenna structure comprising an outer antenna structure, outer antenna feed, outer antenna radiator, inner accommodating perimeter, inner feed clearance areas, an inner antenna structure, an inner antenna radiator, inner antenna feeds, a first alignment feature, and a second alignment feature.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
US 20090140927 A1 (Maeda; Hiroyuki et al.) discloses an inner antenna with an outer antenna surrounding it wherein said antennas can comprise multiple shapes and multiple inner and outer feeds.
US 11855363 B2 (Sampo; Takeshi) discloses an outer antenna with a space formed serving as an perimeter in which an inner antenna structure can be placed wherein said antennas comprise multiple feeds.
US 20180090843 A1 (US 20180090843 A1) discloses a patch antenna structure with alignment features to align the radiating element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURBIR SINGH whose telephone number is (703)756-4637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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 E 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/GURBIR SINGH/Examiner, Art Unit 2845