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 without traverse of claims 1-13 (species I) is acknowledged.
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, 6-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Yang” (US 10454156).
Claim 1: Yang discloses a communication device, comprising:
a metal mechanism element 210 (Fig. 2), having a slot (for display 230);
a loop element (110+C1+160+150+170+C2; Fig. 4; col. 2, ll. 59-65), coupled to the metal mechanism element (col. 5, ll. 6-9: “at least one of the first ground element 110 and the second ground element 150 is electrically connected to the metal back cover 210”);
a first radiation element 120, having a feeding point FP, and coupled (via 130) to a first connection point 131 on the loop radiation element; and
a second radiation element 140, coupled to a second connection point 141 on the loop element, wherein the first radiation element and the second radiation element are disposed inside the loop element (see Fig. 4);
wherein an antenna structure is formed by the metal mechanism element, the loop element, the first radiation element, and the second radiation element (see Fig. 4 and abstract).
Yang fails to expressly teach the loop element being a radiation element.
However, Yang teaches “With respect to the antenna principles, the second ground element 150, the first parasitic element 160, and the second parasitic element 170 are excited by the feeding element 120 using a coupling mechanism, so as to form a low-frequency resonant path. The low-frequency resonant path corresponds to the aforementioned low-frequency band. Furthermore, the feeding element 120 forms a high-frequency resonant path. The high-frequency resonant path corresponds to the aforementioned high-frequency band.” (Col. 4, second para.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use Yang’s loop as a radiation element, in order to facilitate low frequency band of operation.
Claims 2-4: Yang teaches the communication device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the metal mechanism element is a metal housing (see Fig. 2);
wherein the slot of the metal mechanism element is a closed slot (see Fig. 2);
wherein the slot of the metal mechanism element substantially has a straight-line shape (see Fig. 2).
Claims 6-7: Yang teaches the communication device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the loop radiation element comprises a long portion (110, 150) and a short portion (160, 170; see Fig. 4);
wherein the first radiation element substantially has an L-shape, and the second radiation element substantially has an inverted L-shape (see Fig. 4).
Claim 8: Yang fails to expressly teach wherein a distance between the first radiation element and the second radiation element is from 1mm to 2mm.
However, 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 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nevertheless, Yang teaches “Note that the above element sizes, element shapes, and frequency ranges are not limitations of the invention. An antenna designer can fine-tune these settings or values according to different requirements.” (Col. 6, ll. 64-67)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang’s invention such that a distance between the first radiation element and the second radiation element is from 1mm to 2mm, in order to facilitate multiband operation (col. 1, ll. 24-32).
Claim 9: Yang teaches the communication device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the antenna structure covers a (low) first frequency band and a second (high) frequency band (col. 4, first para.).
Yang is silent regarding the antenna structure covers a third frequency band.
However, Yang teaches “To satisfy user demand, mobile devices can usually perform wireless communication functions. Some devices cover a large wireless communication area; these include mobile phones using 2G, 3G, and LTE (Long Term Evolution) systems and using frequency bands of 700 MHz, 850 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 1900 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2300 MHz, 2500 MHz, and 2700 MHz. Some devices cover a small wireless communication area; these include mobile phones using Wi-Fi and Bluetooth systems and using frequency bands of 2.4 GHz, 5.2 GHz, and 5.8 GHz.” (Col. 1, ll. 24-32)
Yang further teaches “Note that the above element sizes, element shapes, and frequency ranges are not limitations of the invention. An antenna designer can fine-tune these settings or values according to different requirements.” (Col. 6, ll. 64-67)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang’s invention such that the antenna structure covers a third frequency band, in order to cover a plurality of communication areas, thereby satisfying user demand.
Claims 11-13: Yang fails to expressly teach wherein a length of the slot of the metal mechanism element is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band;
wherein a total length of the first radiation element and the long portion of the loop radiation element is from 0.25 to 0.75 wavelength of the second frequency band;
wherein a total length of the first radiation element and the short portion of the loop radiation element is from 0.25 to 0.75 wavelength of the third frequency band.
However, 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 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCP A 1980).
Nonetheless, Yang teaches “In the embodiment of FIG. 4, the antenna structure 400 further includes a first capacitor C1 and a second capacitor C2. … The first capacitor C1 and the second capacitor C2 are configured to fine-tune the effective lengths of the low-frequency resonant paths of the antenna structure 400, thereby reducing the total size of the antenna structure 400. In some embodiments, the capacitance of each of the first capacitor C1 and the second capacitor C2 is from 0.1 pF to 1 pF. … Other features of the antenna structure 400 of FIG. 4 are similar to those of the antenna structure 100 of FIG. 1. Accordingly, the two embodiments can achieve similar levels of performance.” (Col. 5, second para.)
Yang further teaches “Note that the above element sizes, element shapes, and frequency ranges are not limitations of the invention. An antenna designer can fine-tune these settings or values according to different requirements.” (Col. 6, ll. 64-67)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang’s invention such that a length of the slot of the metal mechanism element is substantially equal to 0.5 wavelength of the first frequency band, or a total length of the first radiation element and the long portion of the loop radiation element is from 0.25 to 0.75 wavelength of the second frequency band, or a total length of the first radiation element and the short portion of the loop radiation element is from 0.25 to 0.75 wavelength of the third frequency band, in order to achieve multi-band operation for communication diversity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lai (US 11469512)
Tseng (US 11095032)
Wei (US 10910698)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM 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, DAMEON LEVI can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights