Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the antenna module is directly soldered to the radio board) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 of the invention only recites that the antenna module is soldered to the radio board. Claim 1 did not recite that the antenna module is directly soldered to the radio board without an intervening connecting member as argued in the remarks (page 6 lines 5-6). Based on the broadest interpretation of the claim language, Onaka’s teaching that the antenna module is soldered, although via a connecting member 140, to the radio board still reads on the current claim 1. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 and 10 under Onaka is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 13 is also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onaka et al (WO 2022/004080 A1), hereinafter Onaka.
Regarding claim 1, Onaka (Figures 3 and 15) teaches an antenna-integrated radio product, comprising an antenna module 122/140 and a radio module 250, the antenna module comprising a plurality of antenna elements 121F and a power divider 120F, the radio module comprising a radio board 250 and a plurality of radio components 110F and 200, wherein the antenna module and the radio components are soldered (para [0029]) to opposite sides of the radio board (Antenna module 122 soldered via connecting board 140 to top of radio board 250 via solder bump 151 and radio components are soldered to bottom of radio board).
Regrading claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Onaka (Figure 15) teaches that the antenna module comprises an antenna board 122, the antenna elements 121F and the power divider 120F are soldered to a first side of the antenna board 122, and a second side of the antenna board is soldered to the radio board 250.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Onaka (Figure 15) teaches that the size of the antenna board 122 is different from the size of the radio board 250.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 2, Onaka (Figures 14 and 15) teaches that the antenna elements soldered to the antenna board are grouped in multiple bands 121F and 125F.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 1, Onaka (para [0031]) teaches that further radio components are provided on a side of the radio board to which the antenna module is soldered.
Regarding claim 10, the structure of Onaka (Figures 3 and 15) would enable a method for producing an antenna-integrated radio product, the antenna- integrated radio product comprising an antenna module 122/140 and a radio module 250, the antenna module comprising an antenna board 122 and a plurality of antenna elements 121F, the radio module comprising a radio board and a plurality of radio components 110F and 200, wherein the method comprises steps of:
a) soldering the antenna elements 121 to a first side of the antenna board 250;
b) soldering the radio components 110F and 200 to a first side of the radio board 250;
c) putting the antenna board together with the radio board, such that a second side of the antenna board that is opposite to the first side thereof faces a second side of the radio board that is opposite to the first side thereof; and
d) soldering the second side of the antenna board to the second side of the radio board (para [0029]).
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.
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 5, 8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onaka.
Regarding claim 5, Onaka teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim 2, except explicitly mention that the antenna module further comprises an impedance transformer and a calibration network soldered to the first side of the antenna board. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to further include an impedance transformer and a calibration network soldered to the antenna board to maximize power transfer, minimizing signal reflections, improving circuit efficiency and optimizing antenna performance.
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1, Onaka (Figure 15 and para [0002]) teaches that the radio components comprise a baseband integrated circuit. Onaka does not explicitly mention a surface mounted filter and/or one or more baseband components selected from a group consisted of a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a central processing unit (CPU), and a random-access memory (RAM). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the baseband integrated circuit with digital components such as a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), a central processing unit (CPU), and a random-access memory (RAM) for digital communication applications.
Regarding claim 13, the antenna-integrated radio product of Onaka (Figure 15) would enable a method for producing the antenna-integrated radio product comprising an antenna module 122/140 and a radio module 250, the antenna module comprising a plurality of antenna elements 121F, a power divider 120F, the radio module comprising a radio board and a plurality of radio components 110F and 200, wherein the method comprises steps of:
a) soldering the radio components 110F and 200 to a first side of the radio board 250;
b) putting the antenna elements 121 and the power divider 120F on a second side of the radio board 250 that is opposite to the first side thereof;
c) soldering the antenna elements and the power divider to the second side of the radio board; and
d) soldering the impedance transformer and the calibration network to the second side of the radio board.
Onaka does not explicitly teach the step of soldering an impedance transformer and the calibration network to the second side of the board.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to also include an impedance transformer and a calibration network soldered to the antenna board to maximize power transfer, minimizing signal reflections, improving circuit efficiency and optimizing antenna performance.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Onaka teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 10 and 13, respectively, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to perform the step a) or the step b) is carried out simultaneously with, before or after the step d).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Onaka teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claims 10 and 13, respectively, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to perform the steps a), b) and d) are carried out in the same reflow oven in order to reduce fabrication steps for cost savings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Onaka fails to teach that the antenna module is directly soldered to the radio board.
Claim 7 would have been found allowable for depending on claim 6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights