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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 17 each recite "a slot radiator configured to radiate a wireless signal through a slot region disposed on the metal plate and the partial region of the top cover." Claims 2–16 depend from claim 1 and claims 18–20 depend from claim 17, and therefore incorporate the same limitation.
The specification does not reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of a slot region occupying the dielectric portion of the top cover at the time of filing. The quoted phrase appears in the specification only as verbatim repetition of the claim language, at Paragraphs 12, 29, 139, and 223. No passage in the specification explains how a slot region is disposed on a dielectric region, what conductive boundary defines the slot region in that dielectric portion, or what electrical function the dielectric portion of the slot region performs. Every embodiment showing the slot region depicts it as bounded entirely within the metal plate. In FIGS. 7B and 7C the slot region SR is shown wholly within metal plate 1321. In FIGS. 11B and 12B the slot region SR is shown wholly within metal plate 1322. FIG. 5 shows the metal plate attached to the cover but does not show any slot extending beyond the plate perimeter. Paragraph 155 states that the slot radiator 1210 radiates through the slot region SR disposed on the metal plate 1321 and a partial region of the top cover 1320, but the accompanying figures show only the former. Original claim language repeated in the specification does not by itself satisfy the written description requirement where the specification provides no further description of the claimed subject matter. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-51 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); MPEP § 2163.06. Applicant is invited to identify, by paragraph and figure, where the specification describes a slot region that extends beyond the perimeter of the metal plate into the dielectric portion of the top cover. If no such disclosure exists, appropriate correction is required. No new matter may be added.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 12 recites that "the first connection portion is configured with a first width and a first length to ensure impedance matching between the transmission line and the slot radiator when a wireless signal is applied to the slot region," and that "the second connection portion is configured with a second width wider than the first width and a second length shorter than the first length." Claim 12 depends from claim 7 and thereby from claim 1, and so embraces every slot radiator geometry, every metal plate size and position, and every operating band within the scope of claim 1. The claim covers any combination of first width, first length, second width, and second length that achieves impedance matching across that full scope.
The specification discloses three specific dimension sets for the second connection portion at Paragraph 186, namely 4 × 12.5 mm, 7 × 12.5 mm, and 7 × 18.5 mm, together with a gap of approximately 0.5 mm between the second connection portion and the metal plate. These are disclosed only in connection with the 600 to 960 MHz low band. No dimensions are disclosed for the first connection portion. No design equation, matching model, impedance transformation relationship, or iterative procedure is disclosed by which a skilled artisan could arrive at dimensions for any other geometry or frequency band. The specification further acknowledges that the disclosed dimensions do not produce matching uniformly. Paragraph 188 states that as the length of the second connection portion increases from 7 × 12.5 mm to 7 × 18.5 mm, antenna performance is somewhat degraded above 800 MHz within the low band while being improved in the 600 to 700 MHz band. The disclosed relationship is therefore a tradeoff rather than a rule that ensures matching.
Considering the factors of In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988), the breadth of the claim, the absence of working direction or guidance, the small number of working examples confined to one band, and the acknowledged performance tradeoff together establish that undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of claim 12. See MPEP § 2164.01(a).
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.
Claim 1 and 17 recite "a metal plate disposed in a partial region, the partial region being made of a dielectric." It is unclear how a metal plate can be disposed in a region that is itself made of a dielectric. The recitation is self-contradictory on its face. It cannot be determined whether the metal plate is embedded within the dielectric material, disposed on a surface of the dielectric region, or substituted for the dielectric in that region. Paragraph 0140 states that the metal plate is formed using an injection method to be attached to a partial region of the top cover, which suggests surface attachment, but the claim language does not correspond to that disclosure. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 and 17 recite "a slot region disposed on the metal plate and the partial region of the top cover." Because the metal plate is already recited as being disposed in the partial region, reciting the slot region as being on both the metal plate and that same partial region renders the metes and bounds indeterminate. It cannot be determined whether a single slot region spans both the metal plate and dielectric material of the cover, whether the slot region is bounded entirely by the metal plate with the cover merely underlying it, or whether two separate slot regions are intended. See also the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above.
Claim 1 and 17 recite "wherein the slot radiator has a first length in a first axis direction with respect to a center point of the slot region, and is configured to increase in width in a second axis direction with respect to the center point." The limitation attributes length and width, measured from the center point of the slot region, to the slot radiator. The slot radiator and the slot region are recited as distinct elements in the same claim. It is unclear whether the dimensions belong to the radiator, to the region, or to both. Claim 16 assigns the tapering to the slot region rather than the slot radiator, confirming inconsistencies in the claim language. Further "configured to increase in width" recites no variable with respect to which the width increases. A fixed physical geometry does not increase in any dimension absent a stated reference. It cannot be determined whether width increases with increasing distance from the center point along the first axis, as FIG. 7C appears to show, or decreases in that direction, or varies with some other parameter. In addition, "configured to increase" applies functional language to what is a static structural shape, further obscuring whether a structural limitation is intended.
Claim 7 recites that "the metal plate is connected to the feeding structure connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line." Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites "a second connection portion configured to be spaced apart from the metal plate by a predetermined distance." Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 8. A feeding structure cannot simultaneously be connected to the metal plate as required by claim 7 and be spaced apart from the metal plate as required by claim 8. Paragraph 157 describes the second connection portion as spaced from the metal plate by the thickness of the side region of the top cover for mutual wireless signal coupling, indicating that spacing is intended. Claims 9 and 18 recite the alternative "connected to or coupled to the feeding structure... to be spaced apart therefrom," demonstrating that applicant is aware of the distinction. As presently written, claims 8, 11, and 12 are indefinite because no single structure can satisfy both the parent and the dependent claim.
Claims 2 and 4 recite "a current distribution formed in different directions in upper and lower regions of the slot region." Claim 2 recites that the metal plate is disposed in a side region of the top cover, while claim 3 recites that the metal plate is disposed in an inner region of the top cover in parallel to the PCB. These are mutually orthogonal orientations. Absent a defined reference frame, the terms "upper" and "lower" as applied to the slot region cannot be determined.
Claims 3 and 5 recite that the slot mode and the patch mode are "synthesized" at a stated frequency, and recite "a first synthesis mode" and "a second synthesis mode." The specification uses these terms at Paragraphs 193 to 195 without defining them. It cannot be determined whether "synthesized" requires simultaneous excitation of both modes, superposition of two separate resonances, merger into a single resonance, or some other relationship. The term is not a recognized term of art with a settled meaning in this context.
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 recites "a center point of the slot region." Claims 1 and 17, from which these claims ultimately depend, already recite "a center point of the slot region." The indefinite article renders it unclear whether the same center point or an additional center point is intended. The terms should read "the center point."
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 recites that the first connection portion extends "to a point higher than the center point of the slot region in a height direction of the PCB" or "of the auxiliary PCB." The term "height direction" of a planar circuit board is not defined in the claims, and no reference frame is established by which "higher" can be determined.
Claim 11 recites "a first distance at which the first connection portion is spaced apart from the metal plate." Claim 8, from which claim 11 depends, recites the first connection portion as being connected in perpendicular to the signal line and extending to a point higher than the center point. Claim 8 does not recite the first connection portion being spaced apart from the metal plate at any distance. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 12 recites that the first connection portion is "configured with a first width and a first length to ensure impedance matching between the transmission line and the slot radiator." This is a recitation of a desired result rather than a structural limitation, and it places no ascertainable boundary on the claimed widths and lengths. Any dimensions that happen to produce a match fall within the claim. The word "ensure" further states an absolute that the specification's own data at FIG. 13B does not support, since VSWR is shown to vary with dimension.
Claim 15 recites "the first signal in the first band" and "the second signal in the second band." Claim 13, from which claim 15 depends, recites a first band and a second band but does not recite any first signal or second signal. There is insufficient antecedent basis for both terms.
Claim 15 recites "not transmitted to the first radiator by the filter part." No claim recites a first radiator. Claims 1 and 13 recite a slot radiator and a second radiator. There is insufficient antecedent basis for "the first radiator."
Examiner Note Only: Claim 15 recites "a filter part consisting of one or more filters." The transitional phrase "consisting of" closes the filter part to the recited elements. It is unclear whether this closure is intended, particularly given that Paragraph 202 describes the filter part as a multi-stage filter that may include a low pass filter, band pass filter, high pass filter, or band stop filter.
Claim 16 recites "a first region disposed in a tapering structure to increase in width in the second axis direction with respect to the center point that is coupling-fed by the feeding structure." The relative clause "that is coupling-fed by the feeding structure" grammatically modifies "the center point." A center point is a geometric location and cannot be coupling-fed. It appears the clause was intended to modify "a first region." Correction is required.
Claim 16 further recites "a second region disposed to have a constant width in the second axis direction." This is inconsistent with claim 1, which requires that the slot radiator increase in width in the second axis direction. It cannot be determined whether the second region falls within or outside the geometry required by claim 1.
Claim 19 recites "the CPW transmission line is disposed on the auxiliary PCB." Claim 17 recites that the transmission line is disposed on the PCB, and claim 18 establishes that this transmission line is the CPW transmission line. A single recited transmission line cannot be disposed on both the PCB and the auxiliary PCB. Claim 9 avoids this by introducing "a co-planar waveguide (CPW) transmission line" on the auxiliary PCB using the indefinite article. Claim 19 uses the definite article and is therefore indefinite.
Claim 19 recites "wherein the feeding structure comprises: a first connection portion... and a second connection portion." Claim 18, from which claim 19 depends, already recites a feeding structure comprising a first connection portion and a second connection portion. It cannot be determined whether claim 19 recites the same two portions or two additional portions.
Claim 20 recites "the second radiator" in the phrase "a second antenna consisting of the slot radiator and the second radiator." While claim 20 earlier introduces "a second radiator," the claim then recites "a first antenna and a second antenna consisting of the slot radiator and the second radiator." It cannot be determined whether the closing phrase defines only the second antenna or both antennas collectively, and if the latter, which radiator constitutes which antenna.
Claim 20 recites that the processor "controls to transmit and receive a signal in a first band through the first antenna, and controls to perform multi-input multi-output (MIMO) in a second band higher than the first band through the first antenna and the second antenna." Claim 20 also recites that "the slot radiator operates in a first band, and the second radiator operates in a second band higher than the first band." If the first antenna comprises the slot radiator, which operates only in the first band, the first antenna cannot participate in MIMO in the second band. The claim is internally inconsistent.
Claim 20 recites "a first band" and "a second band higher than the first band" a second time within the same claim after both terms have already been introduced. Use of the indefinite article makes it unclear whether the same bands or additional bands are intended.
Claim 20 recites "wherein an area of a metal region surrounding a second region where the second antenna is disposed is larger than that of a first region where the first antenna is disposed." The pronoun "that" refers back to "an area of a metal region," but the comparison as written is between the area of a metal region and the area of a first region. It cannot be determined whether the comparison is between two metal region areas or between a metal region area and a claim region area.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The claim limitation "feeding structure configured to transmit the wireless signal via the transmission line disposed on the PCB to the slot radiator" in claims 1 and 17 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses the generic placeholder "structure" coupled with functional language, without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP § 2181(I).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to for the recitation "a metal plate disposed in a partial region, e partial region being made of a dielectric." The term "e partial region" appears to be a typographical error for "the partial region."
Claim 13 is objected to for the recitation "a second radiator connected to the signal line of the CPW transmission line and is disposed perpendicular to the metal plate," which is grammatically incorrect. A similar construction appears in claim 20.
Claim 20 is objected to for the recitations "controls to transmit and receive" and "controls to perform," which should read "is configured to."
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104167603 A (hereinafter "Jin") in view of US 20160218423 A1 (hereinafter "Roulston") and further in view of US 7830321 B2 (hereinafter "Fukuchi").
Claim 1: Jin teaches an antenna module configured to be mounted on a vehicle (e.g., see "vehicle-mounted shark fin antenna structure," Title; claim 1; FIGS. 1-3) the antenna module comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) having a transmission line disposed thereon (e.g., see base plate 4 having a circuit structure disposed thereon, claim 1; Paras. 21, 26; FIGS. 1-3); a bottom cover in which the PCB is disposed (e.g., see sealing gasket plate 5 disposed on the side of base plate 4 opposite the conduction device, wherein base plate 4 is located within the space enclosed by sealing gasket plate 5, Paras. 20, 80; FIGS. 1-3); a top cover fastened to the bottom cover and arranged to accommodate the PCB therein (e.g., see antenna housing 1 covered onto base plate 4 such that base plate 4 and antenna housing 1 enclose an internal cavity, and such that sealing gasket plate 5 and antenna housing 1 enclose a further internal space in which base plate 4 is located, claim 1; Paras. 28, 56, 78, 80; FIGS. 1-3), the top cover having a metal plate disposed in a partial region, the partial region being made of a dielectric (e.g., see antenna trace 11 formed on the surface of the plastic antenna housing 1 by laser activation of the housing surface to form a metal nucleus followed by electroplating, such that the trace occupies a portion of that plastic surface, claim 2; Paras. 24, 30-32; FIG. 3); and a feeding structure configured to transmit the wireless signal via the transmission line disposed on the PCB to the slot radiator so as to radiate the wireless signal through the slot radiator (e.g., see the conduction device comprising contact spring piece 2 and matching substrate 3, mounted on base plate 4 and conducting between the circuit structure on base plate 4 and antenna trace 11, claim 1; Paras. 21, 43; FIG. 3).
Jin does not teach a slot radiator configured to radiate a wireless signal through a slot region disposed on the metal plate and the partial region of the top cover, wherein the slot radiator has a first length in a first axis direction with respect to a center point of the slot region, and is configured to increase in width in a second axis direction with respect to the center point.
However Roulston teaches a slot radiator configured to radiate a wireless signal through a slot region disposed on a conductive portion of a cover of a housing (e.g., see bow tie shaped slot 28, 30 formed in a first portion 21 of the wall 26 of hollow enclosure 20, claim 1; Paras. 4, 27-29; FIGS. 2, 4, 5), wherein the slot radiator has a first length in a first axis direction with respect to a center point of the slot region (e.g., see length L1 measured along longitudinal axis of symmetry LSY 34, FIG. 5), and is configured to increase in width in a second axis direction with respect to the center point (e.g., see width increasing from W2 at the central section 32 to W1 at the outer ends of tapering sections 31 and 33, FIG. 5; see also transverse axis of symmetry TSA 35).
Further, Fukuchi teaches a bow tie slot formed in a metal plate (e.g., see bow tie slot 11 formed in the major planar side of rectangular conductive plate 10, claim 1; FIG. 1), wherein the plate and slot are formed by stamping out a metallic plate (e.g., see claim 3), and a feeding part formed at one of two vertical angle parts opposed at a center part of the bow tie slot (e.g., see feeding part 13 at vertical angle part 12a, claim 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to form the antenna trace on the antenna housing of Jin as a metal plate having the bow tie shaped slot taught by Roulston and Fukuchi. Roulston expressly states that using a bow tie shaped slot provides a large bandwidth (e.g., see Para. 47), which addresses the recognized need for wideband vehicle antenna operation. The results of substituting one known radiator geometry for another on the same molded housing surface would have been predictable to a skilled artisan. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 6: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1, wherein the metal plate is formed using an injection method so as to be attached to a partial region of the top cover (e.g., see Jin, the antenna trace being formed on the surface of the injection-molded plastic antenna housing, claim 2; Paras. 27, 30-32).
To the extent Jin teaches laser activation and plating rather than an injection method, the Examiner takes Official Notice that forming a metal member onto a partial region of a molded plastic cover by injection molding, i.e., insert molding or in-mold decoration, is a well-known and conventional alternative in the antenna housing art.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to attach the metal plate to the antenna housing of Jin by an injection method in order to reduce assembly steps and improve adhesion of the conductor to the cover.
Claim 7: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1, wherein the metal plate is disposed on a side region of the top cover (e.g., see Jin, the antenna trace disposed on the inner wall or outer wall of the antenna housing, Paras. 23-24; see also Roulston, slot 28 formed in wall 26 at a side of enclosure 20, FIG. 4), and the metal plate is connected to the feeding structure connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the transmission line (e.g., see Jin, the contact spring piece of the conduction device extending upward from the base plate to contact the antenna trace on the housing, claim 1; Para. 21; see also Roulston, conductor 40 extending perpendicularly through wall 21 to port 50, FIG. 6).
Jin as modified does not explicitly teach that the transmission line is a co-planar waveguide (CPW) transmission line having ground patterns disposed on both sides of a signal line.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that a CPW transmission line comprising a signal line with ground patterns disposed on both sides thereof on the same surface of a substrate is a well-known and conventional transmission line structure.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to implement the transmission line on the base plate circuit of Jin as a CPW transmission line in order to obtain a defined 50 ohm characteristic impedance with low radiation loss and to permit the ground return to be brought up to the feeding structure on the same surface as the signal line.
Claim 8: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 7, wherein the feeding structure comprises: a first connection portion connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line and extending to a point higher than a center point of the slot region in a height direction of the PCB so that a wireless signal is coupled to the slot region (e.g., see Roulston, conductor 40 positioned within the cavity, extending from port 50 toward the slot, wherein the trajectory of the conductor on the bow tie shaped slot overlaps the transverse axis of symmetry TSA 35 of the slot, Para. 12; FIGS. 2, 6); and a second connection portion configured to be spaced apart from the metal plate by a predetermined distance at a point higher than the center point (e.g., see Roulston, the conductor being spaced apart from the slot and electrically isolated from the hollow enclosure so as to capacitively couple thereto, claim 1; Paras. 4-5).
Claim 11: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 8, wherein the second connection portion is disposed more adjacent to the metal plate than the first connection portion such that a second distance at which the second connection portion is spaced apart from the metal plate is smaller than a first distance at which the first connection portion is spaced apart from the metal plate (e.g., see Roulston, conductor 40 having a cross-section that changes along at least a portion of its longitudinal axis such that the portion at the slot end differs in dimension from the portion at the port end, Paras. 10-11; see the differing cross sections 42 and 43 in FIG. 6).
Claim 12: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 7, wherein the first connection portion is configured with a first width and a first length to ensure impedance matching between the transmission line and the slot radiator when a wireless signal is applied to the slot region, and wherein the second connection portion is configured with a second width wider than the first width and a second length shorter than the first length (e.g., see Roulston, the conductor being tapered such that its cross-sectional dimension varies along the longitudinal axis, Paras. 10-11; FIG. 6, wherein the wider cross section 43 is nearer the port and the narrower cross section 42 is nearer the slot, thereby forming a tapered impedance transition; see also Para. 48 describing a novel feeding technique which avoids the need for a balun).
Claim 16: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1, wherein the slot region comprises: a first region disposed in a tapering structure to increase in width in the second axis direction with respect to the center point that is coupling-fed by the feeding structure (e.g., see Roulston, tapering sections 31 and 33 increasing in width from W2 to W1 away from the center of the slot, FIG. 5, the slot being coupling-fed by the spaced-apart conductor 40, claim 1); and a second region disposed to have a constant width in the second axis direction (e.g., see Roulston, central section 32 having constant width W2 over length L2, FIG. 5).
Jin as modified does not explicitly teach that the first region of the slot region is disposed in a first side region of the top cover, and at least part of the second region is disposed in a second side region adjacent to the first side region.
However Jin teaches that the antenna trace is laid out and formed over the surface of the shark-fin shaped antenna housing, which surface comprises multiple adjoining faces (e.g., see claim 1; Paras. 23-24, 27).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to extend the slot region of the modified Jin antenna so that part of it lies on a second, adjacent side region of the antenna housing in order to accommodate the electrical length required for low band operation within the limited footprint of a low-profile vehicle antenna cover. Rearranging a conductor across adjoining faces of a molded housing is a routine layout choice yielding predictable results.
Claim 17: Jin teaches a vehicle comprising: an antenna module disposed below a roof of the vehicle (e.g., see the vehicle-mounted shark fin antenna structure mounted to the vehicle, Title; claim 1); and a processor disposed inside or outside the antenna module, and configured to communicate with at least one of an adjacent vehicle, a road side unit (RSU), or a base station (e.g., see the circuit structure disposed on the base plate and conducted to the antenna trace for transmitting and receiving signals, claim 1; Para. 21), wherein the antenna module further comprises: a printed circuit board (PCB) having a transmission line disposed thereon (e.g., see base plate having a circuit structure thereon, claim 1; Para. 21); a bottom cover having the PCB disposed therein, the bottom cover configured to be attached to the vehicle (e.g., see sealing gasket plate enclosing the base plate and the assembly being mounted to the vehicle, Para. 20); a top cover fastened to the bottom cover and arranged to accommodate the PCB therein, the top cover having a metal plate disposed in a partial region, the partial region being made of a dielectric (e.g., see the antenna housing enclosing an internal cavity with the base plate, and the antenna trace formed on the plastic housing surface, claim 1; claim 2; Paras. 28, 30-32); a slot radiator configured to radiate a wireless signal through a slot region disposed on the metal plate and the partial region of the top cover; and a feeding structure configured to transmit the wireless signal via the transmission line disposed on the PCB to the slot radiator (e.g., see the conduction device conducting between the base plate circuit structure and the antenna trace, claim 1; Para. 21), wherein the slot radiator has a first length in a first axis direction with respect to a center point of the slot region, and is configured to increase in width in a second axis direction with respect to the center point.
The remaining limitations are taught by Roulston and Fukuchi as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above, and the same rationale for combination applies.
Claim 18: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the metal plate is disposed on a side region of the top cover, and the metal plate is connected to or coupled to the feeding structure connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line to be spaced apart therefrom, and wherein the feeding structure comprises: a first connection portion connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line and extending to a point higher than the center point of the slot region in a height direction of the PCB so that a wireless signal is coupled to the slot region; and a second connection portion configured to be spaced apart from the metal plate by a predetermined distance at a point higher than the center point (e.g., see the citations and Official Notice set forth in the rejections of claims 7 and 8 above).
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Roulston and Fukuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ali et al., "Design of dual mode wideband SIW slot antenna for 5G applications," (hereinafter "Ali").
Claim 2: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1, wherein the metal plate is disposed in a side region of the top cover (e.g., see Jin, the antenna trace disposed on the inner wall or outer wall of the antenna housing, Paras. 23-24).
Jin as modified does not explicitly teach that the slot radiator operates in a slot mode at a first frequency in an operating band of the slot radiator in response to a current distribution formed in different directions in upper and lower regions of the slot region, and operates in a patch mode at a second frequency higher than the first frequency in response to a current distribution formed in a same direction on the metal plate.
However Ali teaches a bow-tie slot radiator that operates in a slot mode at a first frequency in an operating band and in a patch mode at a second frequency higher than the first frequency (e.g., see "presented antenna operates in two modes denoted as slot mode and half-patch mode," p. 3, resonating at f1 = 27.05 GHz and f2 = 28.8 GHz, FIG. 3), the two modes being distinguished by the surface current distribution at those respective frequencies (e.g., see FIG. 4A showing the surface current distribution at 27.05 GHz and FIG. 4B showing the surface current distribution at 28.8 GHz; see also Abstract, "Each slot excites two modes (slot mode and half patch mode) in the antenna due to its geometry").
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to operate the bow tie slot radiator of the modified Jin antenna in a slot mode and a patch mode as taught by Ali. Ali states that the resonant frequencies in these modes are optimized to achieve wide impedance bandwidth (e.g., see Abstract), which serves the same wideband objective already recognized in Roulston. Exciting two modes from a single half-bow-tie slot geometry would have produced the predictable result of increased bandwidth.
Claim 3: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1, wherein the metal plate is disposed in an inner region of the top cover and is disposed above the PCB in parallel to the PCB (e.g., see Jin, the antenna trace disposed on the inner wall of the antenna housing above the base plate, Para. 24), and wherein the slot radiator operates in a first synthesis mode in which a slot mode and a patch mode are synthesized at a first frequency in an operating band of the slot radiator, and operates in the slot mode at a second frequency higher than the first frequency (e.g., see Ali, the antenna resonating at two frequencies f1 and f2 arising from the slot mode and the half patch mode which together form a single continuous wide impedance bandwidth of 24.8 to 31.6 GHz, Abstract; FIG. 3).
Claim 4: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 3, wherein the slot mode is configured such that a current distribution is formed in different directions in upper and lower regions of the slot region, and the patch mode is configured such that a current distribution is formed in a same direction on the metal plate (e.g., see Ali, FIGS. 4A and 4B showing the surface current distributions at the slot mode frequency and the patch mode frequency respectively; see also p. 4 describing that in the patch mode the variations in input impedance are due to changes in the path length through which the current is flowing in the patch).
Claim 5: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 4, wherein the slot radiator operates in a second synthesis mode in which the slot mode and the patch mode are synthesized at a third frequency between the first frequency and the second frequency, and operates in the first synthesis mode at a fourth frequency between the third frequency and the second frequency, and wherein a direction of a current distribution formed in the slot region in the second synthesis mode is formed in a direction opposite to that of a current distribution formed in the slot region in the first synthesis mode (e.g., see Ali, the slot mode and half patch mode being combined across the continuous band from 24.8 to 31.6 GHz such that intermediate frequencies between f1 and f2 are supported by contributions of both modes, Abstract; FIG. 3; and the oppositely directed surface currents shown between FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to tune the slot mode and patch mode resonances of the modified Jin antenna so as to produce additional combined resonances at intervening frequencies, as Ali teaches that the resonant frequencies of the two modes are optimized by varying the slot parameters (e.g., see Ali, Sections 3.1 and 3.2; FIG. 5). Optimizing the placement of known resonances to fill the intervening band is a routine tuning operation yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Roulston and Fukuchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20170250475 A1 (hereinafter "Liu").
Claim 9: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1, wherein the metal plate is disposed on the top cover (e.g., see Jin, antenna trace formed on the surface of the antenna housing, claim 1; Para. 24), and wherein the metal plate is coupled to the feeding structure connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line to be spaced apart therefrom by a predetermined distance or connected thereto (e.g., see Roulston, conductor 40 spaced apart from and electrically isolated from the slot-bearing enclosure so as to capacitively couple thereto, claim 1).
Jin as modified does not explicitly teach an auxiliary PCB disposed perpendicular to the PCB, a CPW transmission line being disposed on the auxiliary PCB having ground patterns disposed on both sides of a signal line.
However Liu teaches an auxiliary carrier disposed perpendicular to a main board and carrying the feeding conductor for a slot antenna (e.g., see antenna carrier 210 positioned at the side face 212 of the device and carrying conductive coupling element 206 and conductive radiator element 208, Para. 29; FIG. 2), wherein the coupling element on that carrier is positioned to capacitively couple with slot 202 of conductive plate 213 (e.g., see claim 1; Para. 29).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to mount the feeding structure of the modified Jin antenna on a separate auxiliary board disposed perpendicular to the main PCB as taught by Liu, in order to place the coupling conductor at the required height adjacent the slot in the cover while keeping the main board planar. Regarding the CPW transmission line, the Examiner relies on the Official Notice taken in the rejection of claim 7 above and the same rationale applies.
Claim 10: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 9, wherein the feeding structure comprises: a first connection portion connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line and extending to a point higher than the center point of the slot region in a height direction of the auxiliary PCB so that a wireless signal is coupled to the slot region (e.g., see Roulston, conductor 40 whose trajectory on the bow tie shaped slot overlaps the transverse axis of symmetry of the slot, Para. [0012]; FIG. 6; see also Liu, coupling element 206 carried on antenna carrier 210 and extending along slot 202, FIG. 2); and a second connection portion configured to be spaced apart from the metal plate by a predetermined distance at a point higher than the center point (e.g., see Roulston, claim 1; see also Liu, the coupling element being positioned to capacitively couple with the slot rather than galvanically contact it, claim 1; Para. [0016]).
Claim 13: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the antenna module of claim 1.
Jin as modified does not explicitly teach a second radiator connected to the signal line of the CPW transmission line and disposed perpendicular to the metal plate, wherein the slot radiator operates in a first band, and the second radiator operates in a second band higher than the first band.
However Liu teaches a second radiator connected to the same feed as the slot radiator (e.g., see conductive radiator element 208 positioned outside of slot 202, and antenna feed structure 204 electrically coupled to both the conductive coupling element 206 and the conductive radiator element 208, claim 1; FIG. 2), wherein the slot antenna structure operates in a first band and the second radiator operates in a second, different band (e.g., see "the conductive radiator element 128 may be configured to resonate in a different RF communication band than the slot antenna structure 140, allowing for two select RF communication bands," Para. 18), and wherein the second radiator is positioned in a cut-out of the metal plate so as not to be shielded by it (e.g., see cut-out 214 in metal plate 213 wherein conductive radiator element 208 is positioned, Para. 29).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to add the second radiator of Liu to the modified Jin antenna and to feed it from the same signal line, in order to cover an additional higher frequency band from a single antenna assembly without adding a separate feed. Liu further shows that combining a slot structure with an additional conductive radiator element yields stronger performance than either element alone (e.g., see plots 304, 306 and 308 in FIG. 3; Para. 30). Orienting that second radiator perpendicular to the metal plate rather than coplanar with it is a routine rearrangement of parts to fit the available height within the antenna cover, and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 19: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the vehicle of claim 18, wherein the antenna module further comprises an auxiliary PCB disposed perpendicular to the PCB, wherein the metal plate is disposed on the top cover, and the CPW transmission line is disposed on the auxiliary PCB having ground patterns disposed on both sides of a signal line, wherein the metal plate is connected to or coupled to the feeding structure connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line to be spaced apart therefrom, and wherein the feeding structure comprises: a first connection portion connected in perpendicular to the signal line of the CPW transmission line and extending to a point higher than a center point of the slot region in a height direction of the auxiliary PCB so that a wireless signal is coupled to the slot region; and a second connection portion configured to be spaced apart from the metal plate by a predetermined distance at a point higher than the center point (e.g., see the citations and Official Notice set forth in the rejections of claims 9 and 10 above).
Claim 20: the modified invention of Jin is such that it teaches the vehicle of claim 17, wherein the antenna module further comprises a second radiator connected to a signal line of the transmission line and disposed perpendicular to the metal plate, the slot radiator operates in a first band, and the second radiator operates in a second band higher than the first band (e.g., see Liu, conductive radiator element 208 positioned outside of slot 202 and fed from the common antenna feed structure 204, claim 1; the radiator element resonating in a different band than the slot antenna structure, Para. 18), wherein the antenna module comprises a first antenna and a second antenna consisting of the slot radiator and the second radiator (e.g., see Liu, the slot antenna structure 140 and the conductive radiator element 128 forming the antenna assembly 120, Paras. 17-18), wherein the processor controls to transmit and receive a signal in a first band through the first antenna (e.g., see Jin, the circuit structure on the base plate conducted to the antenna trace, claim 1; Para. 21), and wherein an area of a metal region surrounding a second region where the second antenna is disposed is larger than that of a first region where the first antenna is disposed (e.g., see Liu, conductive radiator element 208 disposed within cut-out 214 of the metal plate 213 such that the plate surrounds it, Para. 29; FIG. 2).
Jin as modified does not explicitly teach that the processor controls to perform multi-input multi-output (MIMO) in a second band higher than the first band through the first antenna and the second antenna.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that performing multi-input multi-output (MIMO) transmission and reception using two antennas of a vehicle antenna module in a given frequency band is well known and conventional.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to configure the processor of the modified Jin antenna to perform MIMO in the second band through the first antenna and the second antenna in order to increase data throughput and link reliability without increasing the allocated bandwidth.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/AMAL PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights