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 Objections
Claims 1-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 (line 6), in view of the Specifications (Fig. 1), “two vertical planes” should be amended to “two perpendicular planes”;
Claim 18 (line 1) “a specific distance” should be amended to “a distance”;
Claim 19 (line 8) “further coupled” should be amended to “is further coupled”;
Claim 20 (line 5) “the same straight line” should be amended to “a straight line”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. (US 7202826 B2, hereinafter Grant) in view of Jiang et al. (US 8427373 B2, hereinafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 1, Grant (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 27-45) discloses an antenna system (10), comprising:
a main ground element (20/22 – regarding the main ground element, see col. 4, lines 38-41);
a first antenna element (30) having a first feeding point (74); and
a second antenna element (40) having a second feeding point (76), wherein the second antenna element is coupled to the main ground element.
Grant does not teach a floating ground element adjacent to the main ground element, wherein the floating ground element is separated from the main ground element. Further, Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the first antenna element is coupled to the floating ground element.
Jiang (Fig. 2) teaches a floating ground element (120) adjacent to a main ground element (130), wherein the floating ground element is separated from the main ground element. Further, Jiang teaches an antenna element (110) having a feeding point (150) and being coupled to the floating ground element.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant to replace the first antenna element with the antenna of Jiang, so that the antenna system comprises a floating ground element adjacent to the main ground element, wherein the floating ground element is separated from the main ground element, and the first antenna element is coupled to the floating ground element. This modification would result in the antenna system having a thin patch antenna with good bandwidth and radiation efficiency (see Jiang, col. 6, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation, wherein the floating ground element is surrounded by the main ground element, and a partition gap is formed between the floating ground element and the main ground element.
PNG
media_image1.png
490
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jiang (Fig. 2) teaches the floating ground element (120) is surrounded by the main ground element (130), and a partition gap is formed between the floating ground element and the main ground element (regarding the partition gap, see annotated Fig. 2 in Jiang below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the floating ground element is surrounded by the main ground element, and a partition gap is formed between the floating ground element and the main ground element. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the first antenna element is a thin patch antenna with good bandwidth and radiation efficiency (see Jiang, col. 6, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 2 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation, wherein the floating ground element and the main ground element are on different planes, and a vertical projection of the floating ground element is at least partially overlapped with the main ground element.
Jiang (Fig. 2) teaches the floating ground element (120) and the main ground element (130) are on different planes, and a vertical projection of the floating ground element is at least partially overlapped with the main ground element (regarding the vertical projection of the floating ground element, see annotated Fig. 2 in Jiang above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the floating ground element and the main ground element are on different planes, and a vertical projection of the floating ground element is at least partially overlapped with the main ground element. This modification would result in the antenna system having a thin patch antenna with good bandwidth and radiation efficiency (see Jiang, col. 6, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant (col. 5, lines 23-27) further teaches the first antenna element (30) supports a vehicle communication and covers a first frequency band.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the first frequency band is between 5850MHz and 5925MHz.
However, Grant (col. 5, lines 42-53) teaches that the first antenna element (30) can cover various frequency bands. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that by changing the antenna electrical length it can cover a specific frequency band of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the first frequency band is between 5850MHz and 5925MHz. This modification would provide an antenna system operating in the desired first frequency band.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant (Fig. 1) further teaches the second antenna element (40) is a planar inverted F antenna.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach a specific distance between the second antenna element and the first antenna element is between 40mm and 60mm.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 26-30) discloses: “A specific distant DS between the first antenna element 300 and the second antenna element 600 can be between 40 mm and 60 mm. The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, Grant (col. 7, lines4-18) teaches that the first antenna element (30) and the second antenna element (40) are positioned so that the mutual coupling between the two antenna elements is effectively reduced.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a specific distance between the second antenna element and the first antenna element is between 40mm and 60mm. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., isolation between the antenna elements as taught by Grant. Furthermore, 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.
Claims 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Sharma et al. (“A Meandered Rectangular Monopole Antenna for Quad-Band Applications”, 2015 IEEE International Microwave and RF Conference, hereinafter Sharma).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Grant teaches the antenna of claim 1.
The modified Foo does not teach the limitation wherein the first antenna element is a monopole antenna.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches a monopole antenna element.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by replacing the first antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Sharma. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 7, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 4 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first antenna element comprises:
a first radiation portion coupled to the first feeding point;
a second radiation portion; and
a third radiation portion, wherein the third radiation portion is coupled to the first radiation portion through the second radiation portion.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches an antenna element comprising:
a first radiation portion coupled to a feeding point;
a second radiation portion; and
a third radiation portion, wherein the third radiation portion is coupled to the first radiation portion through the second radiation portion (regarding the feeding point, the first radiation portion, the second radiation portion, and the third radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma below).
PNG
media_image2.png
592
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by replacing the first antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Sharma, so that the first antenna element comprises: a first radiation portion coupled to the first feeding point; a second radiation portion; and a third radiation portion, wherein the third radiation portion is coupled to the first radiation portion through the second radiation portion. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first radiation portion substantially has a wide stripe shape.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches the first radiation portion substantially has a wide stripe shape (regarding the first radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the first radiation portion substantially has a wide stripe shape. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a length of the first radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.25 times the wavelength of the first frequency band.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 28-30) discloses: “The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the length of an antenna element and, thus, the lengths of portions of the antenna element are proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a length of the first radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.25 times the wavelength of the first frequency band. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., achieving good antenna return loss (i.e., impedance matching) for the desired frequency band(s) of operation (see Sharma, Fig. 8). Furthermore, 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).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the second radiation portion substantially has a meandering shape.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches the second radiation portion substantially has a meandering shape (regarding the second radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the second radiation portion substantially has a meandering shape. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a length of the second radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 28-30) discloses: “The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the length of an antenna element and, thus, the lengths of portions of the antenna element are proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a length of the second radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., achieving good antenna return loss (i.e., impedance matching) for the desired frequency band(s) of operation (see Sharma, Fig. 8). Furthermore, 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).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the third radiation portion substantially has a narrow stripe shape.
Sharma (Fig. 4) teaches the third radiation portion substantially has a narrow stripe shape (regarding the third radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 4 in Sharma above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the third radiation portion substantially has a narrow stripe shape. This modification would result in an antenna system having a quad-band monopole antenna covering four operating frequency bands (see Sharma, Abstract) as a first antenna element.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 7 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein a length of the third radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band.
However, the Specification ([0063], lines 28-30) discloses: “The above dimension ranges are obtained based on multiple experimental results, which help to optimize the omnidirectionality, operational bandwidth, and impedance matching of the antenna system 100.” Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the length of an antenna element and, thus, the lengths of portions of the antenna element are proportional to the wavelength of radiation corresponding to the frequency of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that a length of the third radiation portion is approximately equal to 0.5 times the wavelength of the first frequency band. This modification would provide antenna system with the desired performance – e.g., achieving good antenna return loss (i.e., impedance matching) for the desired frequency band(s) of operation (see Sharma, Fig. 8). Furthermore, 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).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Nella et al. (“A Survey on Microstrip Antennas for Portable Wireless Communication System Applications”, 2017 International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics, 13-16 Sept 2017, hereinafter Nella).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant (col. 6, lines 55-60) further teaches the second antenna element (40) supports a mobile communication and covers a second frequency band.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the second antenna element covers a second frequency band, a third frequency band, and a fourth frequency band.
Nella (Figs. 8-9; p. 2158, paragraph after Fig. 8) teaches an antenna element that covers three frequency bands.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by substituting the second antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Nella. This modification would provide the predictable result of an antenna system wherein the second antenna element covers a second frequency band, a third frequency band, and a fourth frequency band.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 14 as addressed above.
The modified Grant does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the second frequency band is between 617MHz and 960MHz, the third frequency band is between 1710MHz and 2690MHz, and the fourth frequency band is between 3300MHz and 5925MHz.
However, Grant (col. 6, lines 66-67 and col. 7, lines 1-3) teaches that the second antenna element (40) can cover various frequency bands. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that by changing the antenna electrical length it can cover a specific frequency band of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the second frequency band is between 617MHz and 960MHz. This modification would provide the predictable result of an antenna system operating in the desired second frequency band.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the third frequency band is between 1710MHz and 2690MHz, and the fourth frequency band is between 3300MHz and 5925MHz.
Nella (Figs. 8-9; p. 2158, paragraph after Fig. 8) teaches an antenna element that covers three frequency bands. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that by changing the antenna electrical length or the lengths of different antenna portions the antenna can cover specific frequency bands of operation.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the third frequency band is between 1710MHz and 2690MHz, and the fourth frequency band is between 3300MHz and 5925MHz. This modification would provide the predictable result of an antenna system operating in the desired third and fourth frequency bands.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Nella and Kuonanoja (US 9761951 B2).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the second antenna element comprises:
a fourth radiation portion coupled to the second feeding point;
a fifth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion, wherein the fifth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion are respectively disposed on two vertical planes;
a sixth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion, wherein a slot is formed between the sixth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion; and
a seventh radiation portion coupled to the second feeding point.
Nella (Fig. 8) teaches an antenna element comprising:
a feeding point;
a fourth radiation portion coupled to the feeding point;
a fifth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion;
a sixth radiation portion coupled to the fourth radiation portion, wherein a slot is formed between the sixth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion; and
a seventh radiation portion coupled to the feeding point
(regarding the feeding point, the fourth radiation portion, the fifth radiation portion, the sixth radiation portion, the seventh radiation portion, and the slot between the sixth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion, see annotated Fig. 8 in Nella below).
PNG
media_image3.png
596
868
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by substituting the second antenna element in Grant with the antenna element of Nella. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the second antenna element covers three frequency bands (see Nella, p. 2158, paragraph after Fig. 8).
The modified Grant does not teach the limitation wherein the fifth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion are respectively disposed on two vertical planes.
Kuonanoja (Fig. 3) teaches an antenna element comprising multiple portions which are displaced on both vertical and perpendicular planes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant so that the fifth radiation portion and the fourth radiation portion are respectively disposed on two vertical planes. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the maximum dimension of the volumetric box enclosing the second antenna element is reduced, which in turn allows the antenna to be integrated in electronic devices with limited space available.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 3 in view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20220416429 A1, hereinafter Matsunaga).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 3.
The modified Grant (Fig. 1; col. 4, lines 36-41) further teaches a printed circuit board (20), wherein the main ground element (22) is disposed on the printed circuit board.
The modified Grant does not teach:
a carrier plate, wherein the floating ground element is disposed on the carrier plate;
a printed circuit board configured to support the carrier plate;
a system ground plane; and
one or more conductive elements, wherein the main ground element further coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements.
Jiang (Fig. 2) teaches a carrier plate (100), wherein the floating ground element (120) is disposed on the carrier plate.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant to include a carrier plate, wherein the floating ground element is disposed on the carrier plate. This modification would provide an antenna system wherein the first antenna element is a thin patch antenna with good bandwidth and radiation efficiency (see Jiang, col. 6, lines 61-64).
The so modified Grant does not teach:
a printed circuit board configured to support the carrier plate;
a system ground plane; and
one or more conductive elements, wherein the main ground element further coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements.
Matsunaga (Fig. 7; [0055], lines 1-3) teaches:
a printed circuit board (100) configured to support a carrier plate (572) of an antenna element (500);
a system ground plane (600); and
PNG
media_image4.png
512
752
media_image4.png
Greyscale
one or more conductive elements, wherein the printed circuit board is coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements (regarding the one or more conductive elements, see annotated Fig. 7 in Matsunaga).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant, so that the antenna system further comprises a printed circuit board configured to support the carrier plate; a system ground plane; and one or more conductive elements, wherein the main ground element further coupled to the system ground plane through the conductive elements. This modification would provide an antenna system with improved performance of its antenna elements – e.g., improved radiation directivity and suppression of unwanted antenna oscillations (see Matsunaga, [0033-0034]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Grant as applied to claim 1 in view of Yun (US 20200112101 A1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Grant teaches the antenna system of claim 1.
The modified Grant (Fig. 1) further teaches a third antenna element (60), wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, and the third antenna element are interleaved with each other and arranged in the same straight line.
The modified Grant does not teach a fourth antenna element.
Yun (Fig. 1) teaches an antenna system (100) comprising four antenna elements (103-106), which are interleaved with each other.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by adding a fourth antenna element, wherein the first antenna element, the second antenna element, the third antenna element, and the fourth antenna element are interleaved with each other and arranged in the same straight line. This modification would provide the antenna system of Grant with a fourth antenna element, which, as is well-known in the art, would provide additional pattern and/or spatial antenna diversity, or coverage of an additional frequency band.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-3467. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00-17:00.
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 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.
/MARIN STOYTCHEV STOYTCHEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/GRAHAM P SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845