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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of the response filed on April 13, 2026, which has been entered in the file.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (WO 2021/147945, of the record and corresponding U.S. 2022/0276682 is used for this action).
Re claim 1: Yu teaches an antenna structure (30F) comprising a radiator (310), a first transmission line (320) and a second transmission line (330) which extend in different directions from each other to be connected to the radiator, a first grounding portion (3401) serving as a first side ground pad disposed adjacent to the first transmission line, a fourth grounding portion (3404) serving as a second side ground pad disposed adjacent to the second transmission line, and a second grounding portion (3402A and 3402B) and a third grounding portion (3403A and 3403B) together serving as a central ground pad disposed between the first transmission line and the second transmission line, wherein the central ground pad includes a slip part (i.e., the second grounding portion and the third grounding portion are separated by a distance (D5) wherein the separation serves as the slip part), and a length of the central ground pad is longer than the lengths of the first side ground pad and the second side ground pad, and wherein the slit part is formed adjacent to and facing the radiator, and has a same shape as a portion of the radiator facing the slit part (i.e., the second ground portion and the third grounding portion are symmetrical with each other respect to the symmetric axis of the radiation body (310) by protrusions (3402B and 3403B)) (see figs. 3A, 8; paragraphs 0125-0136, 0152-0153).
However, Yu fairly suggests that the central ground pad is formed as a single pad.
Yu also teaches that an antenna structure (30E) comprising the second grounding portion (3402) and the third grounding portion (3403) connected with each other (see fig. 7; paragraph 0151).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to connect the second body (3402A) and the third body (3403A) of the antenna structure (30F) of Yu as suggested by fig. 7 of Yu in order to form a simpler grounding structure and easy to manufacture (paragraph 0151).
Re claim 2: Wherein the radiator has a rhombus shape, and the slit part has a triangular shape (fig. 8).
Re claim 3: Wherein the first transmission line (320) comprises: a first feeding part (3201) extending in a longitudinal direction thereof, and a first bent part extending from the first feeding part to be connected to the radiator, and wherein the second transmission line (330) comprises a second feeding part (3301) extending in the longitudinal direction, and a second bent part extending from the second feeding part to be connected to the radiator (fig. 3A; paragraph 0128).
Re claim 4: Wherein the first bent part is inclined at a first angle clockwise with respect to the longitudinal direction, and the second bent part is inclined at a second angle counterclockwise with respect to the longitudinal direction (fig. 3A).
Re claim 5: Wherein the central ground pad includes a first cut part (3402B) and a second cut part (3403B), in which both corners thereof on a side of the radiator are cut (fig. 8; paragraph 0152).
Re claim 6: In addition to the teachings of Yu as discussed above, he also teaches that a grid lines (i.e., the grid lines comprising the feed lines (320, 330) and the grounding portions (3401-3404)) can have various structures (paragraph 0135).
However, he fails to particularly teach that the first/second cuts are parallel to the first/second bent parts respectively.
It would have been an obvious design variation well within the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to failing to provide any unexpected results for choosing the particular shape of antenna module such as the first/second cuts being parallel to the first/second bent parts for receiving or transmitting signals therewith, and therefore an obvious expedient.
Re claim 8: Wherein the slit part is parallel to a facing side of the radiator (fig. 8).
Re claim 9: Wherein power feed signals having the same phase are applied to the first transmission line and the second transmission line (i.e., one feed line including both the first feed line (320) and the second feed line (330) (paragraph 0126) which implicitly imply the first and second feed line having same phase).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection rely on combination of different embodiments of the prior art of the record to Yu as discussed above.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “In contrast, the claimed invention is centered on a single central ground pad itself including the slit part.” (see page 7, 6th paragraph of the Remarks), the examiner respectfully agrees with the applicant that Yu fails to particularly teach that the central ground pad itself including the slit part. However, Yu discloses the second and third bodies (3402A and 3403B) with protrusions (3402B and 3403B) as shown in fig. 8 and a single integral conductors can be formed by connecting the second grounding portion (3402) and the third grounding portion (3403) as shown in fig. 7. Therefore, it would have been an obvious to connect the second and third bodies (3402A and 3403B) for easier manufacturing of the antenna as discussed above.
In response to the applicant argue that “…Yu does not teach that a slit part included in a central ground part… is a primary factor performance adjustment” (see page 8, 1st paragraph of the Remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant wherein Yu discloses that S-parameter of the antenna is improved by setting protrusion on the ground portion (paragraph 0153) and the ground portions can be connected for easier to manufacture (paragraph 0151) as discussed above.
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 SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/SEUNG H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights