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 with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner appreciates the time and effort of the Applicant in the compact prosecution of this case. The amendments submitted on 03/04/2026 have not place the application in condition for allowance. See the rejection below.
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.
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 1-4, 7, 10-14, 17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiaming et al. (CN116130939A) in view of Emara et al. (US 20210083392).
Regarding claim 1:
Jiaming et al. disclose (in Figs. 1, 11 and 12) a terminal antenna (10), wherein the terminal antenna (10) is arranged in an electronic device (100), and the terminal antenna (10) comprises: a first radiator (defined by 110, 120 and 210/310), wherein the first radiator comprises N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) connected end to end (See Figs. 11 and 12), N being an integer greater than or equal to 2 (See Figs.), and one end of any one of the radiating elements (e.g. 110, 120 and 210/310) is grounded through a reactance element (160, 161/162); and wherein the N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) comprise a first radiating element (110), and a feed (130) is arranged at one end of the first radiating element (110) that is farthest away from the reactance element (160, 161/162).
Jiaming et al. are silent on that among the N radiating elements, a farther distance away from the feed corresponds to a smaller width of a respective radiating element, and a smaller width of the respective radiating element corresponds to a higher current density.
Emara et al. disclose (in Figs. 4, 6-8) wherein among the N radiating elements (defined by e.g. 660-680), a farther distance away from the feed (610) corresponds to a smaller width (defined by W3) of a respective radiating element (defined by 680), and a smaller width (defined by W3) of the respective radiating element corresponds to a higher current density (the smaller element supports a higher frequency band and the longer element supports a lower frequency band).
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 among the N radiating elements, a farther distance away from the feed corresponds to a smaller width of a respective radiating element, and a smaller width of the respective radiating element corresponds to a higher current density as taught by Emara et al. into the device of Jiaming et al. for the benefit of achieving compact multiple frequency band antennas which, in addition to providing the controlled radiation pattern and circular polarization purity are impedance matched without substantially increasing the footprint of the antenna and/or the complexity of the microwave/RF circuit interfaced to them which provides the multiple signals to the multiple antenna elements (Para. 0008, Lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 2:
Jiaming et al. disclose the one end of any one of the radiating elements (e.g. 110, 120 and 210/310) being grounded through the reactance element (160, 161/162) comprises that: for the any one of the radiating elements (e.g. 110, 120 and 210/310), the reactance element (160, 161/162) is arranged at one end of the any one of the radiating elements (e.g. 110, 120 and 210/310) that is farthest away from the feed (130; See Figs.).
Regarding claim 3:
Jiaming et al. disclose the N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) further comprise a second radiating element (120), the second radiating element (120) is arranged on one side of the first radiating element (110) that is closest to the feed (130), and the reactance element (160) is arranged at a first end of the second radiating element (120); and wherein a second end of the second radiating element (120) is connected to a third end of the first radiating element (110) at a second end, the second end is different from the first end, and the third end is an end of the first radiating element (110) at which the feed (130) is arranged (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 4:
Jiaming et al. disclose the N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) further comprise a third radiating element (210/310), the third radiating element (210/310) is arranged on one side of the first radiating element (110) that is farthest away from the feed (130), and the reactance element (161/162) is arranged at a fourth end of the third radiating element (210/310); and wherein a fifth end of the third radiating element (210/310) is connected to a sixth end of the first radiating element (110) at a fifth end, the fifth end is different from the fourth end, and the sixth end is an end of the first radiating element (110) that is farthest away from the feed (130).
Regarding claim 7:
Jiaming et al. disclose the reactance element comprises any one of the following: a lumped inductor, a distributed inductor, and an electrical connection component (Para. 0064, Line 1; Para. 0065, Lines 1-3; Para. 0090, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 10:
Jiaming et al. disclose a uniform normal electric field is distributed near a radiator of the terminal antenna when the terminal antenna operates (Para. 0006, Lines 6-9; Para. 0010, Lines 1-4; Para. 0013, Lines 3-5 and 7-9; Para. 0015, Lines 1-4; Para. 0054, Lines 7-10).
Regarding claim 11:
Jiaming et al. disclose (in Figs. 1, 11 and 12) an electronic device (100), wherein the electronic device (100) comprises a terminal antenna (10), and the terminal antenna (10) comprises: a first radiator (defined by 110, 120 and 210/310), wherein the first radiator (defined by 110, 120 and 210/310) comprises N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) connected end to end, N being an integer greater than or equal to 2, and one end of any one of the radiating elements (any one of 110, 120 and 210/310) is grounded through a reactance element (160, 161/162); and wherein the N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) comprise a first radiating element (110), and a feed (130) is arranged at one end of the first radiating element (110) that is farthest away from the reactance element (160, 161/162).
Jiaming et al. are silent on that among the N radiating elements, a farther distance away from the feed corresponds to a smaller width of a respective radiating element, and a smaller width of the respective radiating element corresponds to a higher current density.
Emara et al. disclose (in Figs. 4, 6-8) wherein among the N radiating elements (defined by e.g. 660-680), a farther distance away from the feed (610) corresponds to a smaller width (defined by W3) of a respective radiating element (defined by 680), and a smaller width (defined by W3) of the respective radiating element corresponds to a higher current density (the smaller element supports a higher frequency band and the longer element supports a lower frequency band).
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 among the N radiating elements, a farther distance away from the feed corresponds to a smaller width of a respective radiating element, and a smaller width of the respective radiating element corresponds to a higher current density as taught by Emara et al. into the device of Jiaming et al. for the benefit of achieving compact multiple frequency band antennas which, in addition to providing the controlled radiation pattern and circular polarization purity are impedance matched without substantially increasing the footprint of the antenna and/or the complexity of the microwave/RF circuit interfaced to them which provides the multiple signals to the multiple antenna elements (Para. 0008, Lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 12:
Jiaming et al. disclose the one end of the any one of the radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) being grounded through the reactance element (160, 161/162) comprises that: for the any one of the radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310), the reactance element (160, 161/162) is arranged at one end of the any one of the radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) that is farthest away from the feed (130; See Figs.).
Regarding claim 13:
Jiaming et al. disclose the N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) further comprise a second radiating element (120), the second radiating element (120) is arranged on one side of the first radiating element (110) close to the feed (130), and the reactance element (160) is arranged at a first end of the second radiating element (120); and wherein a second end the second radiating element (120) is connected to a third end of the first radiating element (110), the second end is different from the first end, and the third end is an end of the first radiating element (110) at which the feed (130) is arranged (See Figs.).
Regarding claim 14:
Jiaming et al. disclose the N radiating elements (110, 120 and 210/310) further comprise a third radiating element (210/310), the third radiating element (210/310) is arranged on one side of the first radiating element (110) that is farthest away from the feed (130), and the reactance element (161/162) is arranged at a fourth end of the third radiating element (210/310); and wherein a fifth end of the third radiating element (210/310) is connected to a sixth end of the first radiating element (110) at a fifth end, the fifth end is different from the fourth end, and the sixth end is an end of the first radiating element (110) that is farthest away from the feed (130).
Regarding claim 17:
Jiaming et al. disclose the reactance element comprises an electrical connection component (Para. 0064, Lines 1; Para. 0065, Lines 1-3; Para. 0090, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 20:
Jiaming et al. disclose a uniform normal electric field is distributed near a radiator of the terminal antenna when the terminal antenna operates (Para. 0006, Lines 6-9; Para. 0010, Lines 1-4; Para. 0013, Lines 3-5 and 7-9; Para. 0015, Lines 1-4; Para. 0054, Lines 7-10).
Regarding claims 21 and 22:
Jiaming et al. are silent on that among the N radiating elements, one end of each of the N radiating elements is grounded through a respective reactance element.
Emara et al. disclose (in Figs. 4, 6 and 7) among the N radiating elements (660-680), one end of each of the N radiating elements (660-680) is grounded through a respective reactance element (635, 645 and 655).
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 one end of each of the N radiating elements is grounded through a respective reactance element as taught by Emara et al. into the device of Jiaming et al. for the for the benefit of achieving effectively transforming the impedance of the radiating element for maximum power transfer (Para. 0052, Lines 8-11)
Claims 5, 9, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiaming et al. (CN116130939A) in view of Emara et al. (US 20210083392), as applied to claims 1 and 11 and further in view of Ishizuka et al. (US 20090128428)
Regarding claims 5 and 15:
Jiaming as modified are silent on that a length of any one of the radiating elements does not exceed ¼ wavelength of an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna.
Ishizuka et al. disclose that a length of any one of the radiating elements does not exceed ¼ wavelength of an operating frequency band of the terminal antenna (Para. 0048, Lines 1-4; Para. 0122, Lines 10-13).
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 antenna length as a quarter wavelength as taught by Ishizuka et al. into the modified device of Jiaming for the benefit of achieving miniaturization of the antenna device (Para. 0048, Lines 1-4; Para. 0122, Lines 13-16).
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
Jiaming as modified are silent on that the operating frequency band of the terminal antenna is in a range of 5150 MHz to 5850 MHz, and an inductor of the reactance element is in a range of [0.5 nH, 5 nH].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the inductor of the reactance element in a range of [0.5 nH, 5 nH] for frequency range of 5150 MHz to 5850 MHz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiaming et al. (CN116130939A) in view of Emara et al. (US 20210083392), as applied to claims 1 and 11 and further in view of Penev et al. (US 20100060544).
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
Jiaming as modified are silent on that a tuning capacitor is further arranged between the reactance element and a reference ground.
Penev et al. disclose (in Fig. 16C) a tuning capacitor (16017) is further arranged between the reactance element (16019 and 16021) and a reference ground (16011).
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 tuning capacitor between the reactance element and the reference ground as taught by Penev et al. into the modified device of Jiaming for the benefit providing filtering on the control line (Para. 0076, Lines 18-21).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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