DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/206 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner appreciates the time and effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case, however, the arguments have not patentably distinct the invention from the prior art cited.
PNG
media_image1.png
338
213
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
647
337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the prior fails to disclose “both of the first main feeder line and the first radiation pattern are of a gridline-like structure”. The figures of prior at (Fang) show the gridline-line structures for the feeder line and the radiation electrode pattern as claimed. It should be noted that grid arrangements are geometric, ordered framework of consistent organized content commonly forming a column (row), modular or hierarchical layouts. The Applicant argues that the antenna elements and the transmission lines are small dots as a way to illustrate the prior art invention. If the materials of the first main feeder line and the first radiation pattern are the grid-line like structure or mesh-like in nature, the Applicant is advised to incorporate into the claims, since it has been established that "though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The limitation that the first main feeder line and the first radiation pattern are of a grid-line like structure have not clearly defined the material of construction of the first main feeder line and the first radiation pattern as argued by the Applicant.
If further efforts are made to clarify and fully define the invention, Applicant is advised to consider referencing specific paragraphs, column and line numbers, and/or figures from the cited prior art. While the citations provided are representative and mapped to individual claim limitations, other portions of the references may also be relevant. Incorporating such disclosures may assist the Applicant in preparing a more complete response to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “41” has been used to designate both “electrode unit” and “first controller”. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “91” has been used to designate both “parasitic component” and “color-film layer”. 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: [0157] appears to refer to “the first sub-patterns 531”, but 531 elsewhere denotes first sub-feeder lines, while the first sub-patterns are 521; [0188] appears to refer to “the first electrode component 441”, but the first electrode component elsewhere is 411; [0188] appears to refer to “the second sub-patterns 551”, but 551 elsewhere denotes second sub-feeder lines, while the second sub-patterns are 561; the display panel embodiments uses 202 for the touch-controlling layer, and also refers to a first binding layer 202.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 16-18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fang et al. (US 20200235491).
Regarding claim 1:
(in Figs. 1A-1C and 4) a millimeter-wave antenna (100), wherein the millimeter-wave antenna (100) comprises: a first base board (110); and an electrode layer (defined by 130 and 430) provided on the first base board (110), comprising at least one electrode unit (130 and 430), wherein the electrode unit (130 and 430) comprises at least a first electrode component (130 and 135), the first electrode component (130 and 135) comprises a first main feeder line (135) and a first radiation pattern (130), and both of the first main feeder line (135) and the first radiation pattern (130) are of a grid-line-like structure (Para. 0004, Lines 14-17; See Figs., to define column and baseline grid arrangements of the radiation patterns and feeder lines); and the first main feeder line (135) extends in a first direction (along the y-axis), the first radiation pattern (130) comprises one or more first sub-patterns (defined by 140-190), and the first sub- patterns (defined by 140-190) are electrically connected to the first main feeder line (135), and are located on at least one side of the first main feeder line (135; See Figs.).
Regarding claim 2:
the first electrode component (130 and 135) further comprises a first side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156), the first side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156) is of a grid-line-like structure (Para. 0004, Lines 14-17; See Figs., to define column and baseline grid arrangements of the radiation patterns and feeder lines), the first side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156) comprises one or more first sub-feeder lines (154, 156), and a direction of extension (along the x-axis) of the first sub-feeder lines (154, 156) is different from a direction of extension (along the y-axis) of the first main feeder line (135); and each of the first sub- patterns (defined by 140-190) is electrically connected to the first main feeder line (135) by one of the first sub-feeder lines (154, 156).
Regarding claim 3:
the first electrode component (130 and 135) further comprises a first side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156), the first side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156) is of a grid-line-like structure (Para. 0004, Lines 14-17; See Figs., to define column and baseline grid arrangements of the radiation patterns and feeder lines), the first side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156) comprises one or more first sub-feeder lines (154, 156), and a direction of extension (along the x-axis) of the first sub-feeder lines (154, 156) is different from a direction of extension (along the y-axis) of the first main feeder line (135); and each of the first sub- patterns (defined by 140-190) is electrically connected to the first main feeder line (135) by one of the first sub-feeder lines (154, 156).
Regarding claim 4:
the electrode layer (defined by 130 and 430) comprises a plurality of electrode units (130 and 430), and each of the electrode units (130, 430) comprises the first electrode component (130 and 135); the plurality of first electrode components (140-190 in 130 and 135) are divided into a plurality of groups (defined by 140-190), and each of the groups comprises at least one of the first electrode components (140-190 in 130 and 135); and among at least two of the groups (defined by 140-190), a direction of extension (along the x-axis) of the first sub-feeder lines (154, 156) in the first electrode component (130 and 135) in one of the groups (defined by 140-190) and a direction of extension of the first sub-feeder lines (154, 156) in the first electrode component (130 and 135) in another of the groups are different (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 5:
each of the groups (defined by 140-190) comprises a plurality of first electrode components (140- 190 in 130 and 135), and directions of extension of the first sub-feeder lines (along the x-axis) in the plurality of instances of the first electrode components (140-190 in 130 and 135) in each of the groups are the same see Figs.).
Regarding claim 16:
in a second direction (along y-axis), a width of a pattern (140-190) of an orthographic projection on the first base board (110) of the first main feeder line (135) in the first electrode component (130 and 135) is constant (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 17:
the electrode unit (130 and 430) further comprises a second electrode component (430 and 435), the second electrode component (430 and 435) comprises a second main feeder line (435 identical to 135), a second side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156 in 435) and a second radiation pattern (440-490), and all of the second main feeder line (435), the second side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156 in 435) and the second radiation pattern (440-490) are of a grid-line-like structure (Para. 0004, Lines 14-17; See Figs., to define column and baseline grid arrangements of the radiation patterns and feeder lines); the second main feeder line (435) extends in the first direction (along x-axis), the second radiation pattern (440-490) comprises one or more second sub-patterns (See Fig.), the second side feeder line (defined by 154 and 156 in 435) comprises one or more second sub-feeder lines (for each of 440-490), a direction of extension of the second sub-feeder lines (for each of 440-490) and a direction of extension of the second main feeder line (435) are different (orthogonal), and each of the second sub-patterns (defined by 440- 490) is electrically connected to the second main feeder line (435) by one of the second sub-feeder lines (defined by 154 and 156 in 435), and is located on one side of the second main feeder line (435); and the first sub-patterns (defined by 140-190) in the first electrode component (130 and 135) are located on one side of the first main feeder line (135) that is close to the second electrode component (430 and 435), and the second sub-patterns (defined by 440-490) in the second electrode component (430 and 435) are located on one side of the second main feeder line (435) that is close to the first electrode component (130 and 135).
Regarding claim 18:
the first electrode component (130 and 135) and the second electrode component (430 and 435) are symmetrical with respect to a first axis (LS2), wherein the first axis (LS2) extends in the first direction (along the y-axis).
Regarding claim 22:
an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises the millimeter-wave antenna (Para. 0045, Lines 1-5; Para. 0046, Lines 4-7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 20200235491) in view of Kim (US 20170005405).
Regarding claim 6:
Fang et al. are silent on that the plurality of first electrode components in the electrode layer are divided into an even number of groups, and the first sub-patterns in the plurality of first electrode components in each of the groups are the same; and among two neighboring groups, a direction of extension of the first sub-feeder lines in the first electrode components in one of the groups and a direction of extension of the first sub-feeder lines in the first electrode components in another of the groups are different.
Kim discloses (in Figs. 1-3) the plurality of first electrode components (defined by 130) in the electrode layer (defined by the layer on 110) are divided into an even number of groups (shown in the figure below), and the first sub-patterns (140, 150) in the plurality of first electrode components (defined by 130) in each of the groups are the same (See Figs.); and among two neighboring groups, a direction of extension of the first sub-feeder lines (141) in the first electrode components (130; 1 in the figure above) in one of the groups and a direction of extension of the first sub-feeder lines (141) in the first electrode components (130; 3 in the figure above) in another of the groups are different (See figure below).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the plurality of first electrode components in the electrode layer are divided into an even number of groups, and the first sub-patterns in the plurality of first electrode components in each of the groups are the same as taught by Kim into the device of Fang et al. for the benefit of improving an operating efficiency of antenna system (Para. 0004, Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 8:
Fang et al. are silent on that the plurality of first electrode components in the electrode layer are divided into at least four groups, the first sub-patterns in the first electrode components in at least two of the groups are equal, and directions of extension of the first sub-feeder lines are different.
Kim discloses the plurality of first electrode components (defined by 130) in the electrode layer (defined by the layer on 110) are divided into at least four groups (1, 2, 3, and 4 in figure above), the first sub-patterns (140, 150) in the first electrode components (130) in at least two of the groups are equal (see figure above), and directions of extension of the first sub-feeder lines (141) are different (see figure above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the plurality of first electrode components in the electrode layer are divided into at least four groups as taught by Kim into the device of Fang et al. for the benefit of improving an operating efficiency of antenna system (Para. 0004, Lines 1-2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 20200235491) in view of Kim (US 20170005405) as applied to claim 1 and further in view Park et al. (US 20230049220).
Regarding claim 7:
Fang et al. are silent on that the plurality of first electrode components in the electrode layer are divided into two groups, areas of orthographic projections on the first base board of the first sub-patterns in the first electrode components in the two groups are equal, and patterns of the orthographic projections are a regular octagon.
Kim discloses the plurality of first electrode components (defined by 130) in the electrode layer (defined by the layer on 110) are divided into two groups (1-2 and 3-4), areas of orthographic projections on the first base board (110) of the first sub-patterns (140, 150) in the first electrode components (130) in the two groups (1-2 and 3-4) are equal, and patterns of the orthographic projections are a regular shape (See figure above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the plurality of first electrode components in the electrode layer are divided into two groups as taught by Kim into the device of Fang et al. for the benefit of improving an operating efficiency of antenna system (Para. 0004, Lines 1-2).
Fang as modified are silent on that patterns of the orthographic projections are a regular octagon.
Park et al. disclose (in Fig. 5) patterns of the orthographic projections are a regular octagon (141; Para. 0075, Lines 1-3).
Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design consideration to design a rectangular shape as other shapes since while differences in radiating elements of an invention to a prior art could provide a basis for patentability, the inventive shape must be non-obvious over the shape of the prior art especially when these differences are only found in the non-functional descriptive nature and are not functionally involved in the manipulative steps of the invention nor do they alter the recited structural elements.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 20200235491) in view of Kim (US 20170005405) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Paulotto et al. (US 20190020121).
Regarding claim 9:
Fang et al. are silent on that shapes of orthographic projections on the first base board of the first sub-patterns in the first electrode components in the at least four groups are the same; and among the at least four groups, areas of orthographic projections on the first base board of the first sub-patterns in the first electrode components in each two of the groups are equal, and are unequal to areas of orthographic
projections on the first base board of the first sub-patterns in the first electrode components in the other two of the groups.
Kim discloses that shapes of orthographic projections on the first base board (110) of the first sub-patterns (140, 150) in the first electrode components (130) in the at least four groups (1, 2, 3 and 4) are the same (see figure above); and among the at least four groups (1, 2, 3 and 4), areas of orthographic projections on the first base board (110) of the first sub-patterns (140, 150) in the first electrode components (130) in each two of the groups are equal (see figure above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the groups have the same shapes of orthographic projections on the first base board as taught by Kim into the device of Fang et al. for the benefit of obtaining a uniform performance of the radiators to achieve a desired resonant frequency and radiation coefficient (Para. 0014, Lines 3-5).
Fang as modified are silent on the unequal to areas of orthographic projections on the first base board of the first sub-patterns in the first electrode components in the other two of the groups.
Paulotto et al. discloses (in Figs. 8-11) an unequal to areas of orthographic projections (along D1 and D2) on the first base board (120) of the first sub-patterns (40A, 40B) in the first electrode components (60) in the other two of the groups (90, and 90A).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement and unequal sized antenna systems as taught by Paulotto et al. into the modified device of Fang for the benefit of performing multi-band millimeter wave communications with a uniform radiation pattern (Para. 0068, Lines 5-7).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al. (US 20200235491) in view of Jia (US 20210384645).
Regarding claim 26:
Fang et al. are silent on that the driving method comprises: controlling, by a first controller, a displaying base board to display; and controlling, by a second controller, the millimeter-wave antenna to radiate.
Jia discloses (in Fig. 7) the driving method comprises: controlling, by a first controller (780), a displaying base board (via 740) to display; and controlling, by a second controller (via 780), the millimeter-wave antenna to radiate (710).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the driving method comprising controlling, by the first controller, the displaying base board to display; and controlling, by the second controller, the millimeter- wave antenna to radiate as taught by Jai into the electronic device of Fang et al. for the benefit of achieve a device having display assembly configured to display pictures or fonts, and can provide an operation interface for a user (Para. 0043, Lines 25-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are further listed in the PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAMIDELE A. IMMANUEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9988. The examiner can normally be reached General IFP Schedule: Mon.-Fri. 8AM - 7PM (Hoteling).
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 5712707893. 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.
/BAMIDELE A IMMANUEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights