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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elects species I (figures 4A and 4B) without traverse, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 03/31/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kerselaers et al. (U.S Publication No. 20170062949 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kerselaers discloses an antenna (which is an antenna system, see fig. 1-12), comprising:
a first helical winding (which is a first coil 615, see fig. 6); and
a second helical winding (which is a second coil 617, see fig. 6) interleaved with the first helical winding (which is the first coil 615, see fig. 6) such that a field generated by the first helical winding (615) and a field generated by the second helical winding (617) are additive (which are the coils 615 and 617 may be wrapped around the core 610 in an interleaved fashion. Alternatively the coils 615 and 617 may be wrapped on top of one another, i.e., the second coil 617 is first wrapped around the core 610, and then the first coil 615 is then wrapped around the core 610 on top of the second coil 617, see paragraph [0055]; and the voltage across the first coil 615 and the second coil 617 of the small loop antenna 605 generates a current through the coils 615 and 617. When a current in the coils is flowing, a magnetic field will be generated around the coils. The generated magnetic field is linear function of the current through the coils, see paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 4, Kerselaers discloses the antenna of claim 1, wherein an input signal is supplied to a first terminal end of each of the first and second helical windings (see fig. 6, paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Kerselaers discloses the antenna of claim 1, further comprising a ferrite core (which is a ferrite core 610) disposed within an opening defined by the first and second helical windings (which are the first coil 615 and the second coil 617), (see fig. 6, paragraph [0055]).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerselaers et al. (U.S Publication No. 20170062949 A1) in view of Takisawa et al. (U.S Publication No. 20140125552 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kerselaers discloses all the limitations of the antenna of claim 1, except for specifying that wherein the first and second helical windings present a same diameter.
Takisawa, on the other hand, discloses an antenna includes a support body having a rod shape, a first helical antenna element, and a second helical antenna element. The first helical antenna element is wound about the axis of the support body. The second helical antenna element overlaps the first helical antenna element with an insulator provided between the first helical antenna element and the second helical antenna element (see abstract). Takisawa discloses furthermore, the winding wires of the first helical antenna element and the second helical antenna element may have the same diameter or different diameters. Furthermore, the respective winding diameters of the first helical antenna element and the second helical antenna element may change or be constant along the length of the first helical antenna element and the second helical antenna element. Furthermore, the dimensions of the illustrated helical antenna elements, such as the number of windings n, the length L, the pitch P, and the winding diameter .phi., are no more than examples, and may be changed as desired in accordance with desired antenna characteristics (see paragraph [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the antenna as taught by Kerselaers with the antenna as taught by Takisawa having the first and second helical windings present a same diameter, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied, as the dimensions of the illustrated helical antenna elements, such as the number of windings n, the length L, the pitch P, and the winding diameter .phi., are no more than examples, and may be changed as desired in accordance with desired antenna characteristics (see paragraph [0047] by Takisawa).
Regarding claim 3, Kerselaers in view of Takisawa discloses all the limitations of the antenna of claim 1, except for specifying that wherein a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm.
However, Kerselaers further discloses in an earbud application, the antenna capacitance is 3 pF and the tuning capacitor is 52 pF. If the induced voltage is 1 uV, the voltage at the LNA input becomes 1.32 uV. In this example the antenna system has a ferrite coil of 2 mm diameter and 6 mm length with an inductance of 3 uH. The antenna circuit is tuned at 11 MHz with a bandwidth of 450 kHz (see paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Kerselaers in view of Takisawa having a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm, in which depends on the size of the antenna is approximately is about 1 mm in diameter, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerselaers et al. (U.S Publication No. 20170062949 A1) in view of Bojiuc et al. (U.S Publication No. 20180145546 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kerselaers discloses the antenna of claim 1, wherein the first and second helical windings (which are the first coil 615 and the second coil 617) each present a first diameter (see fig. 6, paragraph [0053]).
Kerselaers does not explicitly disclose the antenna further comprising third and fourth interleaved helical windings each presenting a second diameter, the second diameter greater than the first diameter, and wherein the first and second helical windings disposed concentrically relative to the third and fourth windings within an opening defined by the third and fourth helical windings.
Bojiuc, on the other hand, discloses an assembly 10 with multilayer series-parallel wound wire layers 20 and 20′ over a multiple number of space apart interleaved common ferromagnetic core support lamination strips 30″ may have an inner or central starting point from the leads 50 and 50′ for the first layer over the first ferromagnetic lamination support 30′ and continuing on an opposed winding direction as a mirrored embodiment continuing to build by repetition up again and again until it reaches the decided number of layers and the entire coil′ size and electromagnetic value becomes as projected for the end user's needs (see fig. 1-8, paragraph [0130]). Bojiuc further discloses the limit to increasing N is that the larger number of windings takes up more room between the magnet's core pieces. If the area available for the windings is filled up, more turns require going to a smaller diameter of wire, which has higher resistance, which cancels the advantage of using more turns. So in large prior art magnets there is a minimum amount of heat loss that can't be reduced (see paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to incorporate the antenna as taught by Bojiuc into the antenna as taught by Kerselaers having third and fourth interleaved helical windings each presenting a second diameter, the second diameter greater than the first diameter, and wherein the first and second helical windings disposed concentrically relative to the third and fourth windings within an opening defined by the third and fourth helical windings as claimed, in order for the windings is filled up in the area available, and more turns require going to a smaller diameter of wire, which has higher resistance, which cancels the advantage of using more turns. So in large prior art magnets there is a minimum amount of heat loss that can't be reduced (see paragraph [0053 by Bojiuc).
Regarding claim 7, Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc discloses the antenna of claim 6, except for specifying that wherein the first or the second diameter is about 1 mm.
However, Kerselaers further discloses in an earbud application, the antenna capacitance is 3 pF and the tuning capacitor is 52 pF. If the induced voltage is 1 uV, the voltage at the LNA input becomes 1.32 uV. In this example the antenna system has a ferrite coil of 2 mm diameter and 6 mm length with an inductance of 3 uH. The antenna circuit is tuned at 11 MHz with a bandwidth of 450 kHz (see paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the antenna as taught by Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc having a diameter of the first or second helical windings is about 1 mm, in which depends on the size of the antenna is approximately is about 1 mm in diameter, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Regarding claim 8, Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc discloses the antenna of claim 6, wherein an input signal is supplied to a first, second, third, and fourth input terminal end of the respective first, second, third, and fourth helical windings (see fig. 4-6 by Bojiuc).
Regarding claim 9, Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc the antenna of claim 6, further comprising a ferrite core (which is a ferrite core, or a ferromagnetic core support lamination strips 30’) disposed within an opening defined by the first and second helical windings (see fig. 3, paragraph [0004], [0079], [0098], [0130] by Bojiuc).
Regarding claim 10, Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc discloses the antenna of claim 9, wherein the ferrite core comprises a rectangular ferrite core (Kerselaers discloses the antenna system has a ferrite coil of 2 mm diameter and 6 mm length with an inductance of 3 uH, see paragraph [0053], and Bojiuc discloses a ferrite core, see fig. 3). Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc silently discloses the ferrite core having dimensions of 1.3 x 1.3 x 8.0 mm.
Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc discloses the ferrite core comprises a rectangular ferrite core (which is the antenna system has a ferrite coil of 2 mm diameter and 6 mm length with an inductance of 3 uH, see paragraph [0053] by Kerselaers, and Bojiuc discloses a ferrite core, see fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify the ferrite core as taught by Kerselaers in view of Bojiuc having dimensions of 1.3 x 1.3 x 8.0 mm, which is considered as an obvious matter of design choice based upon an actual design requirement so that the various designs of circuit may be satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at (571) 270-7101. 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844 01/26/2025
Prosecution Insights