DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 17 under 35 USC 102(a)(1), Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection set forth herein.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Azad (US 2017/0264001 A1) in view of Wang (US 2021/0242567 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azad (US 2017/0264001 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Azad teaches an antenna structure disposed on a metal case (Fig. 1, [0022] housing formed of metal), the metal case having a surface, the antenna structure comprising:
a slot formed on the surface along a direction (Fig. 6, slot 122, [0045]); and
a metal unit disposed on the metal case (Fig. 6, [0045], conductive structure 124 ), comprising:
at least one blocking part in contact with the surface, extended toward and crossed over the slot to separate the slot into a plurality of slot paths ([0045] The presence of the short circuit formed by structures 124 across slot 122 creates closed ends 122-2 for left slot 122L and right slot 122R).
Regarding claim 5, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Azad.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, further comprising:
at least one antenna unit (Fig. 5, 40) disposed on the metal case ([0005] metal housing), comprising:
a ground part (Fig. 5, 96, [0043]);
a feeding part (Fig. 5, 94, [0043];
a first radiating part connected to the feeding part (Fig. 5, [0044] 92 coupled to feed structure, a slot), the first radiating part feeding a signal through the feeding part to couple each of the slot paths to excite a resonant frequency corresponding to each of the slot paths (Fig. 6, slots 122L, 122R); and
a second radiating part connected to the ground part ([0044] ground feed terminal 100).
Regarding claim 17, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
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 of this title, 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 2-4, 6-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azad (US 2017/0264001 A1) in view of Wang (US 2021/0242567 A1).
Regarding claim 2, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Azad.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, wherein the at least one blocking part has a blocking length along the direction (Fig. 6, 122, 124), each of the slot paths are spaced apart by the blocking length.
Azad does not explicitly teach the antenna structure, wherein a length of each of the slot paths are greater than the blocking length.
However, Azad further teaches the length of the slots may have lengths that support resonances of target bands ([0051]) and the width may be adjusted in consideration for isolation ([0052]).
Wang also teaches a length and width of a slot may be set based on a requirement of an operating frequency band of the product and/or a material shape of the product ([0064]).
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 3, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Azad.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, wherein a number of the at least one blocking part is one, the slot paths comprise a first path and a second path (Fig. 6, 122L, 122R).
Azad does not explicitly teach the antenna structure, wherein a length of the first path is smaller than or equal to a length of the second path.
However, Azad further teaches the length of the slots may have lengths that support resonances of target bands ([0051]) and the width may be adjusted in consideration for isolation ([0052]).
Wang also teaches a length and width of a slot may be set based on a requirement of an operating frequency band of the product and/or a material shape of the product ([0064]).
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. As such, the claimed dimensions appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4, all the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Azad.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, wherein a number of the at least one blocking part is one, the slot paths comprise a first path and a second path (Fig. 6, 122L, 122R).
Azad does not explicitly teach the antenna structure, wherein a number of the at least one blocking part is three, the slot paths comprise a first path, a second path, a third path, and a fourth path, wherein a length of the first path is equal to the length of the second path, the length of the third path is equal to the length of the fourth path, and the length of the first path is greater than the length of the third path.
However, Azad further teaches the length of the slots may have lengths that support resonances of target bands ([0051]) and the width may be adjusted in consideration for isolation ([0052]).
Wang also teaches a quantity, shape, length and width of slots may be set based on a requirement of an operating frequency band of the product and/or a material shape of the product ([0062]~[0064]).
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variables recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions and variables are critical. As such, the claimed number of blocking parts, number of slot paths and length of the paths appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, all the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Azad.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, wherein the slot paths comprise a first path and a second path, the resonant frequency of the first radiating part coupled to excite each of the slot paths comprises a first frequency band, a second frequency band, and a third frequency band ([0020]);
wherein the first frequency band is between 2400 MHz and 2500 MHz ([0020] 2.4GHz), the third frequency band is between 5900 MHz and 7100 MHz ([0020] 60GHz]), and a length of the first path and a length of the second path are smaller than or equal to 1/2 times a wavelength of the first frequency band ([0051] quarter wavelength).
Azad does not explicitly teach the antenna device, wherein the second frequency band is between 5100 MHz and 5900 MHz.
However, Azad further teaches the length of the slots may have lengths that support resonances of target bands ([0051]).
Wang also teaches a quantity, shape, length and width of slots may be set based on a requirement of an operating frequency band of the product and/or a material shape of the product ([0062]~[0064]).
In cases like the present, where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen frequency bands or upon another variables recited within the claims, applicant must show that the chosen frequency bands and variables are critical. As such, the claimed frequency bands appear to be an obvious matter of engineering design choice and thus, while being a difference, does not serve in any way to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Kuhle, 526 F2d. 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 7, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 8, Azad teaches an antenna structure disposed on a metal case (Fig. 1, [0022] housing formed of metal), the metal case having a surface, the antenna structure comprising:
a slot formed on the surface along a direction (Fig. 6, slot 122, [0045]); and
a metal unit disposed on the metal case (Fig. 6, [0045], conductive structure 124 ), comprising:
at least one blocking part in contact with the surface, extended toward and crossed over the slot to separate the slot into a plurality of slot paths ([0045] The presence of the short circuit formed by structures 124 across slot 122 creates closed ends 122-2 for left slot 122L and right slot 122R).
However, Azad does not explicitly teach the antenna structure, wherein the metal unit is a clickable touch panel.
Wang teaches a slot antenna structure disposed on a metal unit, wherein the metal unit is a clickable touch panel ([0004], [0005] surface C includes a touchpad and a slot antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to place the antenna structure of Li on a surface including a touch panel in order to overcome known restrictions of notebook computers on deployment of a mobile communication antenna due to the features of the notebook computer such as metallic bodies and full-screen trend (Wang, [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15, all the limitations of claim 12 are taught by Azad in view of Wang.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, wherein the at least one antenna unit further comprises:
a substrate disposed on the surface, a vertical projection of the substrate on the surface partially corresponding to the slot and partially corresponding to the metal unit, the ground part, the feeding part, the first radiating part, and the second radiating part being disposed on the substrate (Fig. 6, 130L, 130R, [0048]).
Regarding claim 16, all the limitations of claim 12 are taught by Azad in view of Wang.
Azad further teaches the antenna structure, wherein the ground part (Fig. 6, 12), the first radiating part (122L), and the second radiating part (122R) are integrally formed with the metal unit (12), and the feeding part (130L, 130R) is disposed on the metal unit.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 3. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has substantially the same subject matter as that in claim 4. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKJIN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Alexander H. Taningco can be reached at 571-272-8048. 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.
/SEOKJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844
Prosecution Insights