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 claim(s) 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third radiator and “an eleventh end, wherein the fourth end and the eleventh end define a first gap” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The figures/spec fail to mention/show a third radiator or “an eleventh end, wherein the fourth end and the eleventh end define a first gap”.
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 21 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.
Claim 21 recites “a third radiator” and further structure to the third radiator which was not previously disclosed in the claims. Although applicants indicated in the remarks that support is found in the application, they did not point out specifically where in the original disclosure these added limitations are found. As such, the support is not sufficient.
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.
Furthermore, Claims 1-19 and 21 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.
It is unclear in claim 21 if the third radiator is the same as the third and sixth branches, an addition to the 3rd and sixth branches, or a new structure entirely. Furthermore, the figures/spec fail to mention/show a third radiator or “an eleventh end, wherein the fourth end and the eleventh end define a first gap”.
Claims 1 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claims recite a seventh radiation branch after only reciting first and second radiating branches without disclose on the structure of the third through sixth radiation branches.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamrakar et al. (US20210111486; hereinafter Tamrakar) in view of Thakur et al. (US20190252770; hereinafter Thakur).
Regarding claim 1, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “An antenna assembly comprising: a grounding terminal (grounds in fig. 1); a common branch (124) electrically coupled to the grounding terminal; a first radiator (110/122/124) comprising: a first radiation branch (110) having a first bending direction; a second radiation branch (122/124) having a second bending direction opposite the first bending direction; and a first gap (gap between 110 and 122) between the first radiation branch and the second radiation branch; a second radiator (114/118/124) comprising: a third radiation branch (114) having a fourth bending direction; and a fourth radiation branch (118/124) having a fifth bending direction opposite the fourth bending direction; and a second gap (gap between 114 and 118) between the third radiation branch and the fourth radiation branch, wherein the first radiator and the second radiator share the common branch (share 124); a feeding structure (112/116) electrically coupled to the first radiation branch and the third radiation branch; and a decoupling apparatus (120) disposed on the common branch, such that the common branch electrically couples to the grounding terminal through the decoupling apparatus (see fig. 1)”.
Tamrakar does not disclose “a seventh radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch and having the first bending direction” or “an eighth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch and having the fourth bending direction”.
However, Thakur teaches ““a seventh radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch and having the first bending direction (fig. 5a has antenna radiators with dual branches bending in the same direction)” or “an eighth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch and having the fourth bending direction (fig. 5a has antenna radiators with dual branches bending in the same direction)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Thakur and make Tamrakar’s antenna assembly with a seventh radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch and having the first bending direction and an eighth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch and having the fourth bending direction, in order to increase antenna bandwidth and/or quality.
Regarding claim 2, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the second radiation branch and the fourth radiation branch are integrally arranged (see fig. 1), to form to form the common branch (124)”.
Regarding claim 3, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 2, wherein the second radiation branch and the fourth radiation branch are integrally arranged into a second T-shaped structure (see fig. 1)”.
Regarding claim 7, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 2, wherein the first radiation branch, the second radiation branch, and the grounding terminal are configured to enclose a first space (left side of T-shape in fig. 1/2), wherein the third radiation branch, the fourth radiation branch, and the grounding terminal are configured to enclose a second space (right side of T-shape in fig. 1/2), and wherein the antenna assembly further comprises: at least one first protrusion part (1) disposed in the first space and coupled to the grounding terminal; and at least one second protrusion part (2) disposed in the second space and coupled to the grounding terminal”.
Regarding claim 8, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 1, wherein the decoupling apparatus comprises one or more decoupling capacitors (120 is an RLC circuit) and is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure (see circuit diagram in fig. 20)”.
Regarding claim 10, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “An electronic device comprising: a body; and an antenna assembly electrically coupled to the body (¶[0043]; The antennas 302a-c may include a conductive antenna portion 310a-c defined by a parting line 334a-c. In embodiments, the conductive antenna portion 310a-c be formed by a metal chassis. The conductive antenna portion 310a-c may be conductively coupled to a body 336a-c of the metal chassis (e.g., around the parting line 334a-c). The body 336a-c may be coupled to a ground plane 306. The ground plane 306 may correspond to chassis ground and/or PCB/FCP ground, which may be coupled to one another)) and comprising: a grounding terminal (grounds in fig. 1); a common branch (124) electrically coupled to the grounding terminal; a first radiator (110/122/124) comprising: a first radiation branch (110) having a first bending direction; a second radiation branch (122/124) having a second bending direction opposite the first bending direction; and a first gap (gap between 110 and 122) between the first radiation branch and the second radiation branch; a second radiator (114/118/124) comprising: a third radiation branch (114) having a fourth bending direction; and a fourth radiation branch (118/124) having a fifth bending direction opposite the fourth bending direction; and a second gap (gap between 114 and 118) between the third radiation branch and the fourth radiation branch, wherein the first radiator and the second radiator share the common branch (share 124); a feeding structure (112/116) electrically coupled to the first radiation branch and the third radiation branch; and a decoupling apparatus (120) disposed on the common branch, such that the common branch electrically couples to the grounding terminal through the decoupling apparatus (see fig. 1)”.
Tamrakar does not disclose “a seventh radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch and having the first bending direction” or “an eighth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch and having the fourth bending direction”.
However, Thakur teaches ““a seventh radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch and having the first bending direction (fig. 5a has antenna radiators with dual branches bending in the same direction)” or “an eighth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch and having the fourth bending direction (fig. 5a has antenna radiators with dual branches bending in the same direction)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Thakur and make Tamrakar’s antenna assembly with a seventh radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch and having the first bending direction and an eighth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch and having the fourth bending direction, in order to increase antenna bandwidth and/or quality.
Regarding claim 11, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 10, wherein the second radiation branch and the fourth radiation branch are integrally arranged (see fig. 1), to form to form the common branch (124)”.
Regarding claim 12, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 11, wherein the second radiation branch and the fourth radiation branch that are integrally arranged join into a second T-shaped structure (see fig. 1)”.
Regarding claim 16, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of claim 11, wherein the first radiation branch, the second radiation branch, and the grounding terminal are configured to enclose a first space (left side of T-shape in fig. 1/2), wherein the third radiation branch, the fourth radiation branch, and the grounding terminal are configured to enclose a second space (right side of T-shape in fig. 1/2), and wherein the antenna assembly further comprises: at least one first protrusion part (1) disposed in the first space and coupled to the grounding terminal; and at least one second protrusion part (2) disposed in the second space and coupled to the grounding terminal”.
Regarding claim 17, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The antenna assembly of 10, wherein the decoupling apparatus comprises one or more decoupling capacitors (120 is an RLC circuit) and is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure (see circuit diagram in fig. 20)”.
Regarding claim 19, Tamrakar (fig. 1-2) discloses “The electronic device of claim 10, wherein the decoupling apparatus comprises: one or more decoupling capacitors (120 is an RCL); and one or more inductors (120 is and RCL),wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in parallel to the one or more inductors (see circuit diagram in fig. 1), and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure”.
Claims 4-6, 9, 13-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamrakar in view of Thakur, further in view of Li et al. (US20200168988; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 2 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “wherein the first radiator further comprises at least one fifth radiation branch coupled to the second radiation branch, and wherein the second radiator further comprises at least one sixth radiation branch coupled to the fourth radiation branch”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the first radiator (11) further comprises at least one fifth radiation branch (171’’) coupled to the first radiation branch or the second radiation branch (attached to 155’ right side branch), and wherein the second radiator (13’) further comprises at least one sixth radiation branch (175’’) coupled to the third radiation branch or the fourth radiation branch (attached to 155’ left side branch)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device wherein the first radiator further comprises at least one fifth radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch or the second radiation branch, and wherein the second radiator further comprises at least one sixth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch or the fourth radiation branch, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 5, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 4 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into first segments, and wherein the decoupling apparatus is disposed on a second segment of the first segments that is proximate to the grounding terminal”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch (171’’) and the at least one sixth radiation branch (175’’) are further coupled to the common branch (155’) and configured to divide the common branch into first segments (171’ and 175’’), and wherein the decoupling apparatus (171’ has an inductor like structure on the bottom) is disposed on a second segment (171’) of the first segments that is proximate to the grounding terminal”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into first segments, and wherein the decoupling apparatus is disposed on a second segment of the first segments that is proximate to the grounding terminal, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 6, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 4 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “further comprising a plurality of decoupling apparatuses, wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into segments, and wherein each of the decoupling apparatuses is disposed on each of the segments”.
However, Li teaches “further comprising a plurality of decoupling apparatuses (175’’ and 171’’ have inductors and capacitors), wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch (171’’) and the at least one sixth radiation branch (175’’) are further coupled to the common branch (155’) and configured to divide the common branch into segments (top and bottom), and wherein each of the decoupling apparatuses is disposed on each of the segments (171’’ has inductor and 175’’ has capacitor)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device further comprising a plurality of decoupling apparatuses, wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into segments, and wherein each of the decoupling apparatuses is disposed on each of the segments, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 9, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 1 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “wherein the decoupling apparatus one or more decoupling capacitors and one or more inductors, wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in series to the one or more inductors and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the decoupling apparatus one or more decoupling capacitors (175’’) and one or more inductors (171’), wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in series to the one or more inductors (fig. 3) and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device wherein the decoupling apparatus one or more decoupling capacitors and one or more inductors, wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in series to the one or more inductors and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 13, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 11 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “wherein the first radiator further comprises at least one fifth radiation branch coupled to the second radiation branch, and wherein the second radiator further comprises at least one sixth radiation branch coupled to the fourth radiation branch”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the first radiator (11) further comprises at least one fifth radiation branch (171’’) coupled to the first radiation branch or the second radiation branch (attached to 155’ right side branch), and wherein the second radiator (13’) further comprises at least one sixth radiation branch (175’’) coupled to the third radiation branch or the fourth radiation branch (attached to 155’ left side branch)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device wherein the first radiator further comprises at least one fifth radiation branch coupled to the first radiation branch or the second radiation branch, and wherein the second radiator further comprises at least one sixth radiation branch coupled to the third radiation branch or the fourth radiation branch, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 14, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 13 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into first segments, and wherein the decoupling apparatus is disposed on a second segment of the first segments that is proximate to the grounding terminal”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch (171’’) and the at least one sixth radiation branch (175’’) are further coupled to the common branch (155’) and configured to divide the common branch into first segments (171’ and 175’’), and wherein the decoupling apparatus (171’ has an inductor like structure on the bottom) is disposed on a second segment (171’) of the first segments that is proximate to the grounding terminal”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into first segments, and wherein the decoupling apparatus is disposed on a second segment of the first segments that is proximate to the grounding terminal, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 15, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 13 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “further comprising a plurality of decoupling apparatuses, wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into segments, and wherein each of the decoupling apparatuses is disposed on each of the segments”.
However, Li teaches “further comprising a plurality of decoupling apparatuses (175’’ and 171’’ have inductors and capacitors), wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch (171’’) and the at least one sixth radiation branch (175’’) are further coupled to the common branch (155’) and configured to divide the common branch into segments (top and bottom), and wherein each of the decoupling apparatuses is disposed on each of the segments (171’’ has inductor and 175’’ has capacitor)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device further comprising a plurality of decoupling apparatuses, wherein the at least one fifth radiation branch and the at least one sixth radiation branch are further coupled to the common branch and configured to divide the common branch into segments, and wherein each of the decoupling apparatuses is disposed on each of the segments, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
Regarding claim 18, Tamrakar the antenna assembly of claim 10 as shown previously.
Tamrakar does not teach “wherein the decoupling apparatus one or more decoupling capacitors and one or more inductors, wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in series to the one or more inductors and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure”.
However, Li teaches “wherein the decoupling apparatus one or more decoupling capacitors (175’’) and one or more inductors (171’), wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in series to the one or more inductors (fig. 3) and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Li and make Tamrakar’s electronic device wherein the decoupling apparatus one or more decoupling capacitors and one or more inductors, wherein each of the one or more decoupling capacitors is coupled in series to the one or more inductors and wherein the decoupling apparatus is formed by lumped elements or a distributed parameter structure, in order to increase bandwidth, improve isolation, and adjust the radiation pattern.
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 AUSTIN MICHAEL BACK whose telephone number is (703)756-4521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM ET.
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 on (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.
/AUSTIN M BACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/DIMARY S LOPEZ CRUZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845