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's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the process (Group II) corresponds to the manufacturing process of the product (Group I)” and “the subject matter of these claim groups is sufficiently related such that a search of the subject matter of the claims of the elected claim group would encompass the same search class/subclasses as a search of the subject matter of the non-elected claim group”. This is not found persuasive because, as indicated in the requirement for election mailed 10/8/25, the process as claimed (Group II) does not include or include reference to the limitations of “away from the substrate” and “wherein a normal direction of the first antenna structure is parallel to a normal direction of the substrate”, and the product as claimed (Group I) does not include or include reference to the limitations of “bending a side of each of the plurality of second antenna structures away from the first antenna structure towards the substrate” subsequent to “disposing an antenna assembly on the support” and thus the search for the distinct scope of Group II in addition to the scope of Group I would impose a serious burden on the Examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 9/27/24 and 2/19/25 are considered by the examiner.
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 1-4, 6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang et al. (CN-114421146-A, machine translation provided by examiner) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0050131).
Regarding claim 1, Zhuang et al. teaches (Figs. 1-6) an antenna device comprising: a substrate (see Fig. 3, translation ¶44, “placed on a plane” teaches said substrate) having a first surface (see Fig. 3); a processing chip (4); a support (11, 21, 31) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 3); and an antenna assembly (10, 20, 30) disposed on a surface of the support away from the substrate (see Fig. 3) and electrically connected to the processing chip (see Fig. 1), wherein the antenna assembly comprises: a first antenna structure (10) disposed on the support, wherein a normal direction of the first antenna structure is parallel to a normal direction of the substrate (see Fig. 3); and a plurality of second antenna structures (20, 40), each disposed on one side of the first antenna structure and inclined relative to the substrate (see angles α, β, in Fig. 2), wherein an included angle between a normal direction of each of the plurality of second antenna structures and the normal direction of the substrate is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees (see Figs. 2, 6).
Zhuang does not teach the substrate having a second surface opposite to the first surface, nor the processing chip being disposed on the second surface of the substrate.
Hashimoto et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna device comprising: a substrate (2) having a first surface (top) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (bottom); a processing chip (1) disposed on the second surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1); a support (4) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1); and an antenna assembly (5) disposed on a surface of the support away from the substrate, wherein the antenna assembly comprises: an antenna structure disposed on the support (5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna device of Zhuang such that the substrate has a second surface opposite to the first surface, and the processing chip is disposed on the second surface of the substrate, employing the teachings of Hashimoto.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling flexibility of positioning of the antenna assembly, and further: it has been held that rearranging parts on an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 1.
Zhuang does not teach wherein the plurality of second antenna structures are each connected to the substrate by an adhesive.
Hashimoto et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna device comprising: a substrate (2) having a first surface (top) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (bottom); a processing chip (1) disposed on the second surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1); a support (4) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1); and an antenna assembly (5) disposed on a surface of the support away from the substrate, wherein the antenna assembly comprises: an antenna structure disposed on the support (5), wherein the antenna structure is connected to the substrate by an adhesive (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna device of Zhuang such that the plurality of second antenna structures are each connected to the substrate by an adhesive, employing the teaching of connecting an antenna structure to a substrate by an adhesive as taught by Hashimoto.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of achieving a predetermined spacing between the support and the substrate (Hashimoto, ¶32).
Regarding claim 3, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first antenna structure and the plurality of second antenna structures each comprise a flexible substrate and an antenna module or an antenna pattern disposed on the flexible substrate (translation ¶38 lines 18-20; see Figs. 1-2; dielectric substrate on which antenna patterns 10, 20, and 30 are collectively disposed is at least partially flexible).
Regarding claim 4, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 3, wherein a shortest distance between adjacent antenna modules or adjacent antenna patterns is greater than or equal to 0.5mm (see translation ¶49).
Regarding claim 6, Zhuang teaches the antenna as claimed in claim 1, wherein a number of the plurality of second antenna structures is two (see Fig. 2), and the two second antenna structures are respectively disposed on opposite sides of the first antenna structure (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 1.
Zhuang does not teach wherein the support comprises a support body and a plurality of conductive portions penetrating the support body.
Hashimoto et al. teaches (Fig. 1) an antenna device comprising: a substrate (2) having a first surface (top) and a second surface opposite to the first surface (bottom); a processing chip (1) disposed on the second surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1); a support (4) disposed on the first surface of the substrate (see Fig. 1); and an antenna assembly (5) disposed on a surface of the support away from the substrate, wherein the antenna assembly comprises: an antenna structure disposed on the support (5), and wherein the support comprises a support body (body of 4) and a plurality of conductive portions penetrating the support body (18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna device of Zhuang such that the support comprises a support body and a plurality of conductive portions penetrating the support body, employing the teachings of Hashimoto.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling electrical communicability between the top surface and bottom surface of the support (Hashimoto, ¶11).
Regarding claim 10, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the antenna device has a range for transmitting and receiving signals that is greater than or equal to 180 degrees (see translation ¶43).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang et al. (CN-114421146-A, machine translation provided by examiner) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0050131) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0231295).
Regarding claim 5, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 3.
Zhuang does not teach wherein the antenna modules or the antenna patterns each comprise at least one transmitting antenna and at least one receiving antenna.
Yoon et al. teaches (Fig. 5) an antenna device comprising: a first antenna structure (600) and a plurality of second antenna structures (500, 700), each disposed on one side of the first antenna structure (see Fig. 5), wherein the first antenna structure and the plurality of second antenna structures each comprise an antenna module or an antenna pattern (611, 612, 511, 512, 711, 712), wherein the antenna modules or the antenna patterns each comprise at least oen transmitting antenna and at least one receiving antenna (¶66, ¶72, ¶78).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna device of Zhuang such that the antenna modules or the antenna patterns each comprise at least one transmitting and at least one receiving antenna, employing the teachings of Yoon.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling transmission and reception by all antenna structures of the antenna device, as would be understood by persons having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhuang et al. (CN-114421146-A, machine translation provided by examiner) in view of Hashimoto et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0050131) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0237879).
Regarding claim 7, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 1.
Zhuang does not teach wherein the quantity of the plurality of second antenna structures if four, and the four second antenna structures are respectively disposed on four sides of the first antenna structure.
Park et al. teaches (Figs. 5-6) an antenna device comprising: a substrate (530) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other; a support (540) disposed on the first surface of the substrate; and an antenna assembly (543, 541) disposed on a surface of the support away from the substrate, wherein the antenna assembly comprises: a first antenna structure (543) disposed on the support, wherein a normal direction of the first antenna structure is parallel to a normal direction of the substrate; and a plurality of second antenna structures (541), each disposed on one side of the first antenna structure, and wherein the quantity of the plurality of second antenna structures is four (541a-d), and the four second antenna structures are respectively disposed on four sides of the first antenna structure (see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna device of Zhuang such that the quantity of the plurality of second antenna structures is four, and the four second antenna structures are respectively disposed on four sides of the first antenna structure, employing the teachings of Park.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna device to function as a two-dimensional antenna array while reducing a coupling effect of the antenna (Park, ¶108).
Regarding claim 8, Zhuang teaches the antenna device as claimed in claim 1.
Zhuang does not teach wherein a size of the first antenna structure is the same as a size of each of the plurality of second antenna structures.
Park et al. teaches (Figs. 5-6) an antenna device comprising: a substrate (530) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other; a support (540) disposed on the first surface of the substrate; and an antenna assembly (543, 541) disposed on a surface of the support away from the substrate, wherein the antenna assembly comprises: a first antenna structure (543) disposed on the support, wherein a normal direction of the first antenna structure is parallel to a normal direction of the substrate; and a plurality of second antenna structures (541), each disposed on one side of the first antenna structure, wherein a size of the first antenna structure (543) is the same as a size of each of the plurality of second antenna structures (each of 541; see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna device of Zhuang such that a size of the first antenna structure is the same as a size of each of the plurality of second antenna structures, employing the teachings of Park.
Doing so would provide the predictable benefit of enabling the antenna device to function as a two-dimensional antenna array while reducing a coupling effect of the antenna (Park, ¶108).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0029556), Farkas (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0144724), Uehara (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0003083), and Kijima et al. (US Patent No. 5,686,926) each teach antenna devices comprising antenna structures angled relative to a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jordan E. DeWitt whose telephone number is (571)270-1235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday from 8:30 AM to 3:30 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 at 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.
/DAMEON E LEVI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2845
/Jordan E. DeWitt/Examiner, Art Unit 2845