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 Objections
Claims 22-33 and 35-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 22-33 and 35-40 depends upon cancelled claims 1-5, 7 and 14. Appropriate correction is required.
For examining purposes, Examiner assumes that claim 22 to depend on claim 21, claim 23 to depend on claim 22, claim 24 to depend on claim 23, claim 25 to depend on claim 24, claim 26 to depend on claim 25, claim 27 to depend on claim 21, claim 28 to depend on claim 27, claim 29 to depend on claim 21, claim 30 to depend on claim 21, claim 31 to depend on claim 21, claim 32 to depend on claim 27, claim 33 to depend on claim 27, claim 35 to depend on claim 34, claim 36 to depend on claim 34, claim 37 to depend on claim 34, claim 38 to depend on claim 34, claim 39 to depend on claim 34, and claim 40 to depend on claim 34.
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 21-26, 29-31 and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein et al (US 2023/0030704 A1) (Applicant’s cited prior art), hereinafter Weinstein, in view of Liu et al (CN 207765606U), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claims 21 and 34, Weinstein (Figures 56A-C and 58 A-C, para [0360] and [0361]) teaches a medical device (intraoral sensor device) comprising:
a housing (Figures 58A and 58C); and
an antenna assembly comprising:
a circuit board 5515 having a communication circuit (para [0353]);
an antenna (metal case 5502 serves as an antenna (para [0353]) extending along one or more planes, each plane parallel to a side of the circuit board; and
a metal contact (feeding pin 5520) extending between the circuit board and the antenna, the metal contact configured to establish an electrical connection between the communication circuit and the antenna.
Weinstein does not explicitly teach that the metal contact is L-shaped.
Liu (Figures 1-3) teaches an antenna assembly comprising an L-shaped metal contact 14 extending between a circuit board 11 and an antenna 13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the metal contact of Weinstein to be an L-shaped metal contact, as taught by Liu, doing so would provide a versatile angled electrical connection for flexibility suitable for tight enclosures.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, as applied to claims “21” and “34”, Liu (Figures 1-3) teaches that the L-shaped metal contact comprises a first leg (vertical leg) and a second leg (horizontal leg), the first leg having a longer length than the second leg.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, as applied to claim “22”, Liu teaches the second leg is coupled to the antenna and the first leg extends to the circuit board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the second leg to be coupled to the circuit board and the first leg extends to the antenna, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 25, as applied to claim “24”, Weinstein (Figures 58A-C) teaches that the antenna 5502 comprises a first portion extending along a first plane parallel to a first side of the circuit board, wherein the first side of the circuit board is greater in length than a second side of the circuit board, the second side adjacent to the first side.
Regarding claim 26, as applied to claim “25”, Liu (Figures 1-3) teaches that the first leg of the L-shaped metal contact is co-planar with the first portion.
Regarding claims 29 and 37, as applied to claims “21” and “34”, Weinstein (para [0003]) teaches that at least a portion of the antenna extends at least partially through the circuit board in a recess defined in the circuit board.
Regarding claims 30 and 38, as applied to claims “21” and “34”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antenna as an LDS antenna suitable for a specific application.
Regarding claims 31 and 39, as applied to claims “21” and “34”, Weinstein teaches that the antenna 5502 is a metal case or a stamped metal antenna.
Regarding claim 36, Weinstein/Liu teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim “34”, except explicitly mention that the housing has a long dimension of less than about 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arbitrary configure the housing to have a long dimension of less than about 20 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 40, as applied to claim “34”, Weinstein (para [0360]) teaches that the housing is associated with an intraoral sensor device or dental implant.
Claims 21, 27, 28, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergun et al (US 2023/0078536 A1) (Applicant’s cited prior art), hereinafter Ergun, in view of Liu.
Regarding claim 21, Ergun (Figures 6-8) teaches an antenna assembly comprising:
a circuit board 740 having a communication circuit (para [0061]);
an antenna 710 extending along one or more planes, each plane parallel to a side of the circuit board; and
a metal contact 720 extending between the circuit board and the antenna, the metal contact configured to establish an electrical connection between the communication circuit and the antenna.
Ergun does not explicitly teach that the metal contact is L-shaped.
Liu (Figures 1-3) teaches an antenna assembly comprising an L-shaped metal contact 14 extending between a circuit board 11 and an antenna 13.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the metal contact of Ergun to be an L-shaped metal contact, as taught by Liu, doing so would provide a versatile angled electrical connection for flexibility suitable for tight enclosures.
Regarding claim 27, as applied to claim “21”, Ergun (Figure 8) teaches that the antenna assembly is disposed in a housing 790.
Regarding claim 28, Ergun/Liu teaches the claimed invention, as applied to claim “27”, except explicitly mention that the housing has a long dimension of less than about 20 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arbitrary configure the housing to have a long dimension of less than about 20 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, as applied to claim “27”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the housing 790 to be associated with a medical device or with a dental implant.
Conclusion
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