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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, in page 5, Applicant argues that “Jain fails to disclose the feature "an antenna, connected to the first region, arranged at the first region and separated from the second region" recited in amended claim 1 of the application”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in annotated Fig. 1 below, Jain et al. shows at least in Fig. 1 the first slot (110), second slot (108) and the metal connecting segment (segment of metal casing of 102 between the slots Figs. 1-5) separating the first and second regions (see annotated Fig. below), and the antenna (106) is arranged at the first region. Additionally, Fig. 3 shows a similar arrangement where the antenna is in a first region separated by the first slot, the second slot, and the metal connecting segment.
Secondly, in page 6, Applicant argues that “in order to enable the resonance circuit 24, the electronic device 2 of Chuang has to set an additional circuit. On the contrary, there is no additional circuit for the slot of the application. That is, the resonance circuit 24 of Chuang and the slot of the application are different technologies. Hence, the applicant submits that it should be reconsidered that the resonance circuit 24 of Chuang is interpreted as the slot of the application. Based on the reason above, the applicant submits that even if a person having ordinary skill in the art combines Jain and Chuang, the person would not be able to get the feature "a connector, connected to the second region" recited in amended claim 1 of the application” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fig. 2 of Chuang et al. clearly shows a slot (24) (“L-shaped etched line” Par. 0021) which separates the antenna (23) from the connector (22) which implies that the resonance circuit (24) is merely a slot and no additional circuit is required, therefore the antenna is in a first region separate from a second region by a slot and in which the connector is arranged and would have been obvious as shown in the rejection below to inhibit interference between the connector and the antenna. Thus the rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
1860
1694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 1-5 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0136261 and Chuang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0214614 (cited by applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Jain et al. teaches an electronic device (Figs. 1-5), comprising:
a casing (metal casing of the computing device 102 Figs. 1-5 Par. 0014), comprising a metal layer (118 Fig. 1 Par. 0013 / 212 Fig. 2 Par. 0023 / 328 Fig. 3 Par. 0025 / 438 Fig. 4 Par. 0031 / 542 Fig. 5 Par. 0033) and a first slot (110 Fig. 1 Par. 0018 / 210 Fig. 2 Par. 0023 / 310 Fig. 3 Par. 0025 / 410 Fig. 4 Par. 0031 / 510 Fig. 5 Par. 0033) and a second slot located on the metal layer (108 Fig. 1 Par. 0018 / 208 Fig. 2 Par. 0023 / 308 Fig. 3 Par. 0025 / 408 Fig. 4 Par. 0031 / 508 Fig. 5 Par. 0033), wherein the metal layer comprises a metal connecting segment (segment of metal casing of 102 between the slots Figs. 1-5), a first region (first region above the slots on top of the device best seen in Fig. 2, also see Fig. 1 annotated above and Fig. 3), and a second region (second region below the slots on bottom of the device best seen in Fig. 2, also see Fig. 1 annotated above and Fig. 3), the metal connecting segment is located between the first slot and the second slot (segment of metal casing of 102 between the slots Figs. 1-5), and the first region and the second region are separated by the first slot, the second slot, and the metal connecting segment (regions above and below the slots on the metal casing of the device best seen in Fig. 2, also see Fig. 1 annotated above and Fig. 3);
an antenna (106 Fig. 1 Par. 0013 / 206 Fig. 2 Par. 0023 / 306 Fig. 3 Par. 0025 / 406 Fig. 4 Par. 0031 / 506 Fig. 5 Par. 0033), connected to the first region, arranged at the first region and separated from the second region (see Fig. 1 annotated above and Fig. 3) and adapted to resonate at a frequency band (2.4 GHz Par. 0020, 0029); and
a connector (USB 838 Fig. 8 Par. 0051).
Jain et al. is silent on a connector, connected to the second region.
However, Chuang et al. teaches a connector, connected to the second region (high-speed connector 22 in second region below slot 24 which separates it from the first region above the slot for antenna 23 Fig. 2 Par. 0021).
In this particular case, providing a connector such as high-speed USB 3.0 connector to be connected to the second region is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Chuang et al. in order to inhibit interference between the connector and the antenna (Par. 0006, 0007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the connector of Jain et al. to be connected to the second region based on the teachings of Chuang et al. as a result effect in order to inhibit interference between the connector and the antenna.
Regarding Claim 2, Jain et al. as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Jain et al. is silent on wherein a length of the metal connecting segment is between 0.2 times and 0.3 times a wavelength of the frequency band.
However, Jain et al. teaches setting the distance between the slots based on the radiating wavelength in order to provide corresponding isolation (Par. 0053, 0061, 0067, 0073).
In this particular case, adjusting dimensions of antenna elements is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Jain et al. in order to provide sufficient isolation at the frequency band of operation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a length of the metal connecting segment to be between 0.2 times and 0.3 times a wavelength of the frequency band based on the teachings of Jain et al. as a result effect in order to provide sufficient isolation at the frequency band of operation.
Regarding Claim 3, Jain et al. as modified teaches wherein a length of the first slot is between 1.5 times and 2 times a wavelength of the frequency band (1.5 times the wavelength Par. 0018).
Additionally, Jain et al. teaches “The radiating patterns 112 and 114 and the resonating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure 104 and the second open slot radiating structure 106 may be changed by varying the size and shape of the first open slot radiating structure 104 and the second open slot radiating structure 106” Par. 0016; “The radiating patterns and the radiating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure 204 and the second open slot radiating structure 206 may be changed by varying the size and shape of the first open slot radiating structure 204 and the second open slot radiating structure 206. The radiating patterns and the radiating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure 204 and the second open slot radiating structure 206 may also be changed by changing the length and routing of a capacitively coupled radiator, as described in more detail with respect to FIG. 3” Par. 0024; “The radiating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure may be adjusted by adjusting the shape and size of the first open slot radiating structure. In some implementations, when the first open slot radiating structure is fed through capacitive coupling, the radiating frequency may be adjusted by adjusting the current fed to the radiator or by adjusting the radiating frequency of the radiator by adjusting the size or shape of the radiator.” Par. 0043.
Jain et al. is silent on the first slot is L-shaped or arc-shaped.
However, Chuang et al. teaches the first slot is L-shaped (24 designed as an L-shape Fig. 2 Par. 0021).
In this particular case, providing an L-shaped slot is common and well known in the art as evident by Chuang et al. to obtain the desired length for isolation by absorbing noise generated by the connector at the frequency band of operation (Par. 0021).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the first slot of Jain et al. to be L-shaped based on the teachings of Chuang et al. as a result effect in order to obtain the desired length for isolation by absorbing noise generated by the connector at the frequency band of operation.
Regarding Claim 4, Jain et al. as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Jain et al. is silent on wherein a length of the second slot is between 0.15 times and 0.25 times a wavelength of the frequency band.
However, Jain et al. teaches “The radiating patterns 112 and 114 and the resonating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure 104 and the second open slot radiating structure 106 may be changed by varying the size and shape of the first open slot radiating structure 104 and the second open slot radiating structure 106” Par. 0016; “The radiating patterns and the radiating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure 204 and the second open slot radiating structure 206 may be changed by varying the size and shape of the first open slot radiating structure 204 and the second open slot radiating structure 206. The radiating patterns and the radiating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure 204 and the second open slot radiating structure 206 may also be changed by changing the length and routing of a capacitively coupled radiator, as described in more detail with respect to FIG. 3” Par. 0024; “The radiating frequency of the first open slot radiating structure may be adjusted by adjusting the shape and size of the first open slot radiating structure. In some implementations, when the first open slot radiating structure is fed through capacitive coupling, the radiating frequency may be adjusted by adjusting the current fed to the radiator or by adjusting the radiating frequency of the radiator by adjusting the size or shape of the radiator.” Par. 0043.
In this particular case, adjusting dimensions of antenna elements such as the length of the second slot is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Jain et al. in order to provide sufficient isolation at the frequency band of operation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure a length of the second slot to be between 0.15 times and 0.25 times a wavelength of the frequency band based on the teachings of Jain et al. as a result effect in order to provide sufficient isolation at the frequency band of operation.
Regarding Claim 5, Jain et al. as modified teaches wherein the casing further comprises a via located on the metal layer, and the via is connected to the first slot or the second slot (538/540 connected to 508/510 through 542 Fig. 5 Par. 0033-0035).
Regarding Claim 10, Jain et al. as modified teaches wherein the frequency band is between 617 MHz and 960 MHz or between 2400 MHz and 2500 MHz (2.4 GHz Par. 0020, 0029).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0136261 and Chuang et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0214614 (cited by applicant) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pu et al. US Patent Application Publication 2010/0156738.
Regarding Claim 6, Jain et al. as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 as shown in the rejection above.
Jain et al. is silent on further comprising a metal retaining wall located next to the antenna, wherein a length of the metal retaining wall is between 0.2 times and 0.3 times a wavelength of the frequency band.
However, Pu et al. teaches a metal retaining wall located next to the antenna (52 / 62 Par. 0025-0027 Figs. 5A-6B).
In this particular case, providing a metal retaining wall located next to the antenna is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Pu et al. in order to provide a shield to further isolate the interference noises to the antenna from other components (Par. 0007). Additionally, configuring the dimensions of the metal retaining wall such as its length to be between 0.2 times and 0.3 times a wavelength of the frequency band is implicit based on the dimensions of the antenna to provide sufficient shielding as seen in at least Pu et al. Figs. 6A and 6B.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the antenna of Jain et al. as modified with a metal retaining wall located next to the antenna with a length of between 0.2 times and 0.3 times a wavelength of the frequency band based on the teachings of Pu et al. as a result effect in order to further isolate the interference noises to the antenna from other components.
Regarding Claim 7, Jain et al. as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 6 as shown in the rejection above.
Jain et al. is silent on wherein a distance between the metal retaining wall and the antenna is between 0.05 times and 0.15 times the wavelength of the frequency band.
However, Pu et al. teaches “selecting a gap between the shielding structure and the radiation plate with optimal gain and bandwidth” Par. 0009.
In this particular case, adjusting the distance between the metal retaining wall and the antenna is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Pu et al. in order to obtain shielding while maintaining optimal antenna gain and bandwidth (Par. 0009).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the distance between the metal retaining wall and the antenna of Jain et al. as modified to be between 0.05 times and 0.15 times the wavelength of the frequency band based on the teachings of Pu et al. as a result effect in order to obtain shielding while maintaining optimal antenna gain and bandwidth.
Regarding Claim 8, Jain et al. as modified teaches the electronic device according to claim 6 as shown in the rejection above.
Jain et al. is silent on wherein a height of the metal retaining wall is between 0.05 times and 0.15 times the wavelength of the frequency band.
However, Pu et al. teaches “selecting bending manners of the radiation plate and the shielding structure according to requirements of system spatial arrangement and radiation pattern” Par. 0009.
In this particular case, selecting the dimensions of the metal retaining wall to have a height corresponding to the antenna is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Pu et al. to provide sufficient shielding (Par. 0009 Figs. 6A and 6B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the height of the metal retaining wall to be between 0.05 times and 0.15 times the wavelength of the frequency band based on the teachings of Pu et al. as a result effect in order to provide sufficient shielding.
Regarding Claim 9, Jain et al. as modified teaches further comprising an inner metal member located in the casing (Pu et al. Fig. 6A annotated below as modified in claim 6 above), wherein the metal retaining wall is formed by folding a part of the inner metal member (Pu et al. Fig. 6A annotated below as modified in claim 6 above), the inner metal member comprises an opening located next to the metal retaining wall (Pu et al. Fig. 6A annotated below as modified in claim 6 above), and the antenna is located on one side of the metal retaining wall opposite to the opening (Pu et al. Fig. 6A annotated below as modified in claim 6 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, EST.
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
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights